caf brochure 2008 a4 english - eupan€¦ · ccaf_brochure_2008_a4_english.ind3...

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF)Improving an organisation through self-assessment

CAF 2006

Index

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2

Enablers Criteria ........................................................................................................... 7Criterion 1: Leadership .................................................................................................. 8Criterion 2: Strategy and planning .............................................................................. 10Criterion 3: People ...................................................................................................... 12Criterion 4: Partnerships and resources ....................................................................... 14Criterion 5: Processes .................................................................................................. 16

Results Criteria ........................................................................................................... 19Criterion 6: Citizen/customer-oriented results ............................................................. 20Criterion 7: People results ........................................................................................... 21Criterion 8: Society results ........................................................................................... 22Criterion 9: Key performance results ........................................................................... 23

CAF Scoring and assessment panels ........................................................................... 24

Guidelines for improving organisations using CAF ..................................................... 30

Bench learning ........................................................................................................... 40

Glossary ................................................................................................................... 43

CAF_Brochure_2008_A4_ENGLISH.ind1 1CAF_Brochure_2008_A4_ENGLISH.ind1 1 23/07/2008 16:02:1323/07/2008 16:02:13

2

Introduction

DefinitionThe Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a total quality management tool inspired by the Excellence Model of the European Foundation for Quality Man-agement (EFQM) and the model of the German Uni-versity of Administrative Sciences in Speyer. It is based on the premise that excellent results in organisational performance, citizens/customers, people and society are achieved through leadership driving strategy and planning, people, partnerships and resources and processes. It looks at the organisation from different angles at the same time; the holistic approach of or-ganisation performance analysis.

Origin and growthThe CAF is a result of cooperation among the EU Min-isters responsible for Public Administration. It is jointly developed under the aegis of the Innovative Public Services Group (IPSG), a working group of national experts set up by the Directors-General (DG) in order to promote exchanges and cooperation concerning in-novative ways of modernising government and public service delivery in EU Member States.

A pilot version was presented in May 2000 and a first revised version was launched in 2002. A CAF Resource Centre CAF (RC) was created at the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Maastricht following the decision of the DGs in charge of public service. In a strategic statement, EIPA pointed out how it wants to play its role as a European CAF Resource Centre and what its objectives are in this respect.

Together with the network of national CAF correspond-ents, assisted by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and the University of Speyer, the CAF RC coached the implementation of the model in many ways and evaluated its use. Between 2000 and mid 2008, around 1350 European public adminis-trations used the CAF to improve their organisations. There is also a lot of interest in using the tool from outside Europe, e.g. from China, the Middle East, the Dominican Republic and Brazil. More than 600 CAF users met at the 3 CAF Users Events respectively or-ganised in Rome in 2003, in Luxembourg in 2005 and in Portugal in 2007. Two studies by EIPA, established in the context of these events, give detailed information on the use of CAF in Europe and they inspired the CAF 2006 revision. A database on CAF applications is be-ing further developed at EIPA, allowing the integra-tion of good practices in public administrations from all over Europe and maybe beyond. A CAF e-tool is available for the organisations using CAF after online registration at the CAF database. The CAF website provides all the available information on the European level. The model is now translated in 20 languag-es. But also on a national level, many countries have developed CAF support structures including training,

e-tools, brochures, CAF users’ events and CAF data bases. All these activities assure all the CAF actors involved that the target of 2000 registered CAF users by 2010 - set by the United Kingdom Presidency - will be met.

The Ministers responsible for Public Administration in the European Union expressed at the end of the Lux-emburg Presidency on 8 June 2005, their apprecia-tion for the fruitful exchange of ideas, experiences and good/best practices between the Public Administrations of the EU Member States within the European Public Administration Network (EUPAN) and for the develop-ment and use of tools such as the Common Assess-ment Framework. They asked to integrate even more the quality approach with the Lisbon agenda. The CAF 2006 revision has taken this demand into account.

Main purpose and supportThe CAF is offered as an easy-to-use tool to assist pub-lic sector organisations across Europe to use quality management techniques in order to improve perform-ance. The CAF provides a self-assessment framework that is conceptually similar to the major TQM mod-els, EFQM in particular, but is specially conceived for public sector organisations, taking into account their differences.

The CAF has four main purposes:1. To introduce public administration to the principles

of TQM and progressively guide them, through the use and understanding of self-assessment, from the current “Plan-Do” sequence of activities, to a fully-fledged “Plan-Do-Check-Act” cycle;

2. To facilitate the self-assessment of a public organi-sation in order to obtain a diagnosis and improve-ment actions;

3. To act as a bridge across the various models used in quality management;

4. To facilitate bench learning between public sector organisations.

A number of components have been worked out in support of these purposes and are explained in this brochure: the structure composed of 9 criteria, 28 sub-criteria with examples; assessment panels for the ena-blers and the results, guidelines for self-assessment, improvement actions and bench learning projects and a glossary.

Target organisations The CAF has been designed for use in all parts of the public sector, applicable to public organisations at the national/federal, regional and local level. It may also be used under a wide variety of circumstances e.g. as part of a systematic programme of reform or as a ba-sis for targeting improvement efforts in specific public service organisations. In some cases, and especially in very large organisations, a self-assessment may also be undertaken in part of an organisation e.g. in a se-lected section or department.


3

Customisation of the toolAs CAF is a generic tool, the customisation of its use can be recommended but respecting its basic elements is compulsory: the 9 criteria, 28 sub-criteria and the scoring system. Examples and the process of self-as-sessment as described in the guidelines are free/ flex-ible but it is recommended to take into account the key elements of the guidelines.

Structure The structure of the CAF is illustrated below:

The nine-box structure identifies the main aspects re-quiring consideration in any organisational analysis. Criteria 1-5 deal with the Enabler features of an or-ganisation. These determine what the organisation does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results. In the criteria 6-9, results achieved in the fields of citizens/customers, people, society and key performance are measured by perception meas-urements and internal indicators are evaluated. Each criterion is further broken down into a list of sub cri-teria. The 28 sub-criteria identify the main issues that need to be considered when assessing an organisa-tion. They are illustrated by examples that explain the content of the sub-criteria in more detail and suggest possible areas to address, in order to explore how the administration meets the requirements expressed in the sub-criterion.

Main characteristicsUsing the CAF provides an organisation with a power-ful framework to initiate a process of continuous im-provement.

The CAF provides:– an assessment based on evidence, against a set of

criteria which has become widely accepted across the public sector in Europe;

– opportunities to identify progress and outstanding levels of achievement;

– a means to achieve consistency of direction and consensus on what needs to be done to improve an organisation;

– a link between the different results to be achieved and supportive practices or enablers;

– a means to create enthusiasm among employees by involving them in the improvement process;

– opportunities to promote and share good practice within different areas of an organisation and with other organisations;

– a means to integrate various quality initiatives into normal business operations;

– a means of measuring progress over time through periodic self-assessment.

Concepts and Values of CAFAs a tool of Total Quality Management, CAF sub-scribes to the fundamental concepts of excellence as defined by EFQM: results orientation, customer focus, leadership and constancy of purpose, management by processes and facts, involvement of people, continu-ous improvement and innovation, mutually beneficial partnerships and corporate social responsibility. It aims to improve the performance of public organisations on the basis of these concepts.

Public management and quality in the public sector have a number of special and unique conditions in comparison with the private sector. They presume basic preconditions, common to our European socio-politi-

Based on the EFQM-Model

The CAF ModelENABLERS RESULTS

INNOVATION AND LEARNING

LeadershipKey

PerformanceResults

Processes

People People Results

Strategy &Planning

Partnership &Resources

Citizen/CustomerOrientedResults

SocietyResults


4

cal and administrative culture: legitimacy (democratic, parliamentary), the rule of law and ethical behaviour based on common values and principles such as open-ness, accountability, participation, diversity, equity, so-cial justice, solidarity, collaboration and partnerships.

Although CAF primarily focuses on the evaluation of performance management and the identification of its organisational causes to make improvement possible, contributing to good governance is the ultimate goal.

So the assessment of performance addresses the fol-lowing main features of a public sector organisation:– democratic responsiveness/accountability;– operating within the legislative, legal and regula-

tory framework;– communicating with the political level;– involvement of stakeholders and balancing of

stakeholder needs;– excellence in service delivery;– value for money;– achievement of objectives;– management of modernisation, innovation and

change.

Cross functions inside the model The holistic approach of TQM and CAF does not sim-ply mean that all aspects of the functioning of an or-ganisation are carefully assessed, but also that all the composing elements have a reciprocal impact on each other. A distinction should be made between – cause-effect relationship between the left part of

the model (the enablers-causes) and the right part (the results-effects), and

– the holistic relationship between the causes (ena-blers).

Only to the latter can the holistic character be applied.

Cross connection between the left and right parts of the model: consists in the cause-effect relation between the enablers (causes) and the results (effects), as well as in the feedback from the latter to the former. Verifica-tion of cause-effect links is of fundamental importance in self-assessment, where the assessor should always check for consistency between a given result (or set of homogeneous results) and the “evidence” collected on the relevant criteria and sub criteria on the enabler side. Such consistency is sometimes difficult to verify, since due to the holistic character of the organisation, the different causes (enablers) interact with each other when producing results. In any case, the existence of appropriate feedback, from results appearing on the right side to the appropriate criteria on the left side, should be checked in the assessment.

Cross connection between criteria and sub-criteria on the enabler side: since quality of results is to a large ex-tent determined by the type and intensity of relationships between enablers, this type of relationship must be ex-plored in self-assessment. In fact their intensity is very dif-ferent between different organisations and their nature determines to a large extent the quality of the organisa-tion. Excellent organisations are, for example, charac-terised by strong interactions between criterion 1 and criteria 2/3/4, and between 3 and 4/5. Relationships are obviously not limited to the criteria level. Quite of-ten substantial interaction/relationships materialise at sub-criterion level.

Importance of evidence and measurementsSelf-assessment and improvement of public organi-sations is very difficult without reliable information across the different functions of the organisation. CAF stimulates public sector organisations to gather and use information, but very often this information is not available at a first self-assessment. This is why CAF is often considered to be a zero base measurement. It indicates the areas in which it is essential to start measuring. The more an administration progresses towards continuous improvement, the more it will sys-tematically and progressively collect and manage in-formation, both internally and externally.

Role of the scoring systemOne of the compulsory elements of the CAF is the scor-ing system. Although the discovery of strengths and areas for improvement and the linked improvement actions are the most important outputs of the self-as-sessment, organisations sometimes focus too much on scores. The scoring system has been retained and elaborated in the new CAF version.

Allocating a score to each sub-criterion and criterion of the CAF model has four main aims:1. to give an indication on the direction to follow for

improvement activities;2. to measure your own progress; 3. to identify good practices as indicated by high

scoring for Enablers and Results;4. to help to find valid partners to learn from.

New in the CAF 2006 is the provision for two ways of scoring. The “classical CAF scoring” and the “fine-tuned CAF scoring”. More information is given in the chapter on scoring.

Managerial language and the glossaryMany public sector organisations, that use CAF for the first time, are confronted with a terminology that is difficult to access. A background in public man-agement of course helps to overcome this, but some people participating in a CAF self-assessment may not have this background. The glossary at the end of this brochure is there to assist them by providing a more precise definition of the main words and concepts.


5

Given the nature of “clients” in the public sector howev-er, we wish to define from the start what we understand by citizen/customer. This term is used to emphasise the dual relationship between public administration and– the users of public services, and– all the members of the public, who as citizens and

taxpayers have a stake in the services provided and their outputs.

Major differences between CAF 2002 and 2006Users of previous CAF versions will not find it too dif-ficult to find their way in the new version.

In the context of the Lisbon strategy, more emphasis is placed on modernisation and innovation. This concern is therefore more explicitly present in the criteria on leadership and strategy whilst the need for permanent innovation of the processes is presented in criterion 5.

The introduction and many new formulated examples better illustrate the contribution of quality manage-ment in the public sector towards good governance. The scoring system allows organisations to deepen their assessment knowledge and focus more closely on their improvement actions.

The guidelines on self-assessment and improvement action plans give additional advice.

The recent success of bench learning with CAF has in-spired new guidelines in this field.

To summarise, self-assessment against the CAF model offers the organisation an opportunity to learn more about itself. Compared to a fully developed Total Qual-ity Management model, the CAF is designed to be a user-friendly introductory model. It is assumed that any organisation that intends to go further will select one of the more detailed models. The CAF has the advan-tage of being compatible with these models and may therefore be a first step for an organisation wishing to go further with quality management.

We know that “CAF Works”!

The CAF is in the public domain and is free of charge. Organisations are free to use the model as they wish.


7

Enablers

Criteria 1-5 deal with the Enabler features of an organisation. These determine what the organisation does and how it approaches its tasks to achieve the desired results. The assess-ment of actions relating to the Enablers should be based on the Enablers Panel (see CAF scor-ing and Assessment panels).


8

Criterion 1: Leadership

DefinitionThe behaviour of an organisation’s Leaders can help to create clarity and unity of purpose and an environment in which the organisation and its people excel.

Leaders provide direction for the organisa-tion. Leaders develop the mission, vision and the values required for the organisation’s long-term suc-cess. They motivate and support people in the or-ganisation by acting as role models and through appropriate behaviours which are consistent with the expressed and implied values.

Leaders develop, implement, and monitor the organisation’s management system and review per-formance and results. They are responsible for im-proving performance and prepare for the future by or-ganising the changes necessary to deliver its mission.

In the public sector, leaders are the main interface be-tween the organisation and politicians and manage their shared responsibilities and are also responsible for managing relationships with other stakeholders and ensuring that their needs are met.

Key implications In a representative democratic system, elected politi-cians make the strategic choices and define the goals they want to achieve in the different policy areas. The leadership of public sector organisations assists politi-cians in formulating policy by giving advice in terms of analysis, horizon-scanning, or visioning, and is also responsible for policy implementation and realisation.

Therefore a distinction needs to be drawn within the public sector between the role of the political leader-ship and that of the leaders/managers of organisa-tions. The CAF focuses on the management of public organisations rather than on the “quality“ of public policies which is a political responsibility.

Beside their proper values, European public sector or-ganisations share a number of common values such as the legality, transparency, equity, diversity and the refusal of conflicts of interest. Leaders communicate these values throughout the organisation and may translate them, for example, into codes of conduct that guide people’s professional behaviour.

Leaders create the optimal conditions for their organi-sation to adapt itself to the continuously changing so-ciety they serve. They are themselves looking for op-portunities to innovate and modernise. They actively integrate e-government approaches.

Leaders in public service organisations typically are re-quired to work within allocated resources to achieve goals and targets. This sometimes necessitates bal-

ancing the needs of citizens, politicians and other stakeholders. Therefore leaders need to show a clear understanding of who their customers are, their re-quirements, and how these can be balanced with po-litical imperatives, demonstrating clear commitment to citizens/customers, as well as to other stakeholders.

Assessment: Consider the evidence of what the organisation’s leadership is doing to:

1.1. Provide direction for the organisation by developing its mission, vision and val-ues.

Examples: a. Formulating and developing the mission (what our

goals are) and the vision (where we want to go) of the organisation involving relevant stakeholders and employees.

b. Translating the mission and vision into strategic (long-term and medium-term) and operational (concrete and short-term) objectives and actions.

c. Establishing a value framework, including in it transparency, ethics and citizen service, and a code of conduct involving stakeholders.

d. Strengthening of mutual trust and respect between leaders/managers/employees (e.g. defin ing norms of good leadership).

e. Creating conditions for effective communication. Ensuring the wider communication of the mission, vision, values, strategic and operational objectives to all employees in the organisation and to other stakeholders.

f. Reviewing periodically the mission, vision and values reflecting changes in the external environment.

g. Managing “conflicts of interest” by identifying po-tential areas of conflicts of interest and providing guidelines for employees.

Award a score using the Enablers Panel

1.2. Develop and implement a system for the management of organisation, perform-ance and change

Examples: a. Developing processes and organisational struc-

tures in accordance with strategy, planning and needs and expectations of stakeholders using available technologies.

b. Defining appropriate management forms (levels, functions, responsibilities and competencies) and ensuring a system for managing processes.

c. Developing and agreeing on measurable objec-tives and goals for all levels of the organisation.

d. Giving direction on output and outcome targets balancing the needs and expectations of different stakeholders.

e. Formulating and aligning the net/e-gov strategy with the strategic and operational objectives of the


9

organisation.f. Establishing a management information system

including internal audits.g. Establishing appropriate enablers/assumptions

(frameworks) for project management and team-work.

h. Permanent application of TQM-system principles such as the CAF Model or the EFQM Excellence Model.

i. Developing a system of measurable strategic and operational goals/performance measuring in the organisation (e.g. Balanced Scorecard).

j. Developing systems of quality management such as ISO 9001-2000, Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and different kinds of certification.

k. Identifying and setting priorities for necessary changes regarding the organisational design and business model.

l. Communicating change initiatives and the reasons for change to employees and relevant stakehold-ers.


1.3. Motivate and support people in the or-ganisation and act as a role model

Examples:a. Leading by example thus acting in accordance

with established objectives and values.b. Demonstrating personal willingness of leaders/

managers to accept change by acting on construc-tive feedback.

c. Keeping employees regularly informed about key issues related to the organisation.

d. Supporting employees by helping them to car-ry out their duties, plans and objectives in sup-port of the achievement of overall organisational objectives.

e. Stimulating, encouraging and creating conditions for the delegation of authority, responsibilities and competencies including accountability (empower-ment).

f. Promoting a culture of innovation and improve-ment by encouraging and supporting employees to make suggestions for innovation and improve-ment and to be proactive in their daily work.

g. Recognising and rewarding the efforts of teams and individuals.

h. Respecting and addressing individual needs and personal circumstances of employees.


1.4. Manage the relations with politicians and other stakeholders in order to en-sure shared responsibility

Examples:a. Identifying the public policies affecting the

organisation.b. Maintaining proactive and regular relations with

the political authorities of the appropriate execu-tive and legislative areas.

c. Ensuring that objectives and goals of the organi-sation are aligned with public policies.

d. Developing and maintaining partnerships and networks with important stakeholders (citizens, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), interest groups, industry and other public authorities).

e. Involving political and other stakeholders in the set-ting of output and outcome targets and the develop-ment of the organisation’s management system.

f. Seeking public awareness, reputation and recog-nition of the organisation and its services.

g. Developing a concept of marketing (product and service targeted) and its communication in rela-tion to stakeholders.

h. Taking part in the activities of professional asso-ciations, representative organisations and interest groups.



10

Criterion 2: Strategy and planning

Definition The way an organisation effectively combines its inter-related activities determines its overall performance. The organisation implements its mission and vision via a clear stakeholder-focused strategy aligning pub-lic policies/goals and other stakeholders needs, sup-ported by a continuously improving management of resources and processes. The strategy is translated into plans, objectives and measurable targets. Plan-ning and strategy reflects the organisation’s approach to implementing modernisation and innovation.

Key implications Strategy and planning is part of the PDCA (Plan Do Check Act) cycle, starting by gathering information on the present and future needs of stakeholders and also from outcomes and results in order to inform the planning process. This includes the use of reliable in-formation, including perceptions from all stakeholders to inform operational policies, planning and strategic direction. Feedback from an internal review process is also fundamental to producing planned improvements in organisational performance.

Identifying critical success factors – conditions that must be fulfilled to achieve strategic goals – and set-ting goals plays a crucial part to ensure an effective follow-up and measurement of the results. Goals need to be formulated in such a way that a distinction is made between outputs and outcomes.

Organisations should consistently and critically moni-tor the implementation of their strategy and planning, and update and adapt them whenever necessary.

Assessment: Consider evidence of what the organisation is doing to

2.1. Gather information relating to the present and future needs of stakehold-ers

Examples:a. Identifying all relevant stakeholders.b. Systematically gathering and analysing informa-

tion about stakeholders, their needs and expecta-tions.

c. Regularly gathering and analysing information, its source, accuracy and quality. This may include information about important variables such as so-cial, ecological, economic, legal and demograph-ic developments.

d. Systematically analysing internal strengths and weak-nesses (e.g. TQM-diagnosis with CAF or EFQM or SWOT analysis).


2.2. Develop, review and update strategy and planning taking into account the needs of stakeholders and available resources

Examples: a. Developing and applying methods to monitor,

measure and/or evaluate the performance of the organisation at all levels ensuring the monitoring of the strategy‘s implementation.

b. Systematically reviewing risks and opportunities (e.g. SWOT-analysis) and identifying critical suc-cess factors by regularly assessing these factors in the organisation’s environment (including political changes).

c. Evaluating existing tasks in terms of outputs (re-sults) and outcomes (impacts) and the quality of the strategic and operations plans.

d. Balancing tasks and resources, long and short term pressures and stakeholder requirements.

e. Assessing the need to reorganise and improve strategies and methods of planning.


2.3. Implement strategy and planning in the whole organisation

Examples: a. Implementing strategy and planning by reaching

agreement and setting priorities, establishing time frames, appropriate processes and the organisa-tional structure.

b. Involving stakeholders in the process of deploying strategy and planning and prioritising stakehold-ers’ expectations and needs.

c. Translating strategic and operational objectives of the organisation into relevant plans and tasks for departmental units and individuals within the or-ganisation.


2.4. Plan, implement and review modernisa-tion and innovation

Examples: a. Creating and developing a new culture/readiness

for innovation by training, benchmarking, estab-lishment of learning laboratories, focusing on the role of strategic thinking and planning.

b. Systematic monitoring of internal indicators/driv-ers for change and external demands for mod-ernisation and innovation.

c. Planning of changes leading towards the process of modernisation and innovation (e.g. applying net services) on the basis of discussions with stake-holders.

d. Integration of instruments and measures; e.g. in-put + output + outcome – measurement; use of


11

TQM principles.e. Ensuring the deployment of an efficient change

management system which includes the monitor-ing of progress in innovation.

f. Ensuring the availability of necessary resources to implement the planned changes.

Award score using the Enablers Panel


12

Criterion 3: People

Definition People are the organisation. They are the organisa-tion’s most important asset. The way in which employ-ees interact with each other and manage the available resources ultimately decides organisational success. Respect, dialogue, empowerment and also providing a safe and healthy environment are fundamental to ensure the commitment and participation of people on the organisational route to excellence. The organisa-tion manages, develops and releases the competences and full potential of its people at individual and organ-isation-wide levels in order to support its strategy and planning and the effective operation of its processes.

Key implications Criterion 3 assesses whether the organisation aligns its strategic objectives with its human resources so that they are identified, developed, deployed and cared for to achieve optimum utilisation and success. Con-sideration should be given to widening the scope of people management to the advantage of both the or-ganisation and its people. People should be assisted to achieve their full potential. Taking care of people’s well-being is an important aspect of people manage-ment.

When organisations create frameworks to allow em-ployees to continually develop their own competen-cies, to assume greater responsibility and to take more initiative, employees contribute to the development of the workplace. This can be enabled by making sure they associate their own performance goals with the strategic objectives of the organisation and also by in-volving them in the establishment of policies related to the recruitment, training, and reward of people.

Finally, criterion 3 spotlights the ability of managers/leaders and employees to actively cooperate on devel-oping the organisation, breaking down organisational silos by creating dialogue, making room for creativity, innovation and suggestions for improving perform-ance. This also helps to increase employee satisfac-tion.

The proper execution of people policies is not just of concern to the HR department, it depends upon all leaders, managers and department heads throughout the organisation, demonstrating that they care about people issues and they actively promote a culture of open communication and transparency.Organisations may, in assessing their performance, take account of any restrictions on their freedom of action resulting from national/general public person-nel policies, pay policies, etc., and indicate how they work within these restrictions to optimise their people’s potential.

Assessment: Consider evidence on what the organisation is doing to

3.1. Plan, manage and improve human resources transparently with regard to strategy and planning

Examples: a. Regularly analysing current and future human re-

source needs, taking into account the needs and expectations of stakeholders.

b. Developing and communicating the human re-sources management policy based on the strategy and planning of the organisation.

c. Ensuring HR capability (recruitment, allocation, development) is available to achieve tasks and balancing tasks and responsibilities.

d. Monitoring of invested human resources in pro-ducing and developing net services.

e. Developing and agreeing on a clear policy con-taining objective criteria with regard to recruit-ment, promotion, remuneration, rewards and the assignment of managerial functions.

f. Ensuring good environmental working conditions throughout the organisation including taking care of health and safety requirements.

g. Managing recruitment and career development with regard to fairness of employment, equal op-portunities and diversity aspects (e.g. gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, race and religion).

h. Ensuring that conditions are conducive towards achieving a reasonable work-life balance for em-ployees.

i. Paying particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged employees and people with disabilities.

Award score using the Enablers Panel

3.2. Identify, develop and use competencies of employees, aligning individual and organisational goals

Examples: a. Identifying current competencies at the individual

and organisational levels in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

b. Discussing, establishing and communicating a strategy for developing competencies. This in-cludes an overall agreed training plan based on current and future organisational and individual needs (with for example distinctions between man-datory and optional training programmes).

c. Developing and agreeing on personal training and development plans for all employees with a special emphasis on managerial, leadership, abil-ities to deal with diverse customers/citizens and


13

partners. This may also include skills training for the providing of net services.

d. Developing managerial and leadership skills as well as relational competences of management regarding the people of the organisation, the citi-zens/customers and the partners.

e. Supporting and assisting new employees (e.g. by means of mentoring, coaching, tutoring).

f. Promoting internal and external mobility of employees.

g. Developing and promoting modern training meth-ods (e.g. multimedia approach, on the job train-ing, e-learning).

h. Planning of training activities and developing communication techniques in the areas of risk and conflict of interest management.

i. Assessing the impacts of training and develop-ment programmes in relation to the costs of the activities through monitoring and the provision of cost/benefit analyses.


3.3. Involve employees by developing open dialogue and empowerment

Examples: a. Promoting a culture of open communication and

dialogue and the encouragement of team work-ing.

b. Proactively creating an environment for gain-ing ideas and suggestions from employees and developing appropriate mechanisms (e.g. sugges-tion schemes, work groups, brainstorming).

c. Involving employees and their representatives in the development of plans, strategies, goals, the design of processes and in the identification and implementation of improvement activities.

d. Seeking agreement/consensus between managers and employees on goals and on ways of measur-ing goal achievement.

e. Regularly conducting staff surveys including pub-lishing results/summaries/interpretations.

f. Ensuring the employees have an opportunity to give feedback on their line managers/directors.

g. Consulting with the representatives of employees (e.g. Trade Unions).

Award a score using the Enablers panel


14

Criterion 4: Partnerships and resources

Definition How the organisation plans and manages its key part-nerships – especially with citizens/customers – in order to support its strategy and planning and the effective operation of its processes. In this way partnerships are important resources for the well-functioning of the or-ganisation.

Next to partnerships, organisations need the more traditional resources – such as finances, technology, facilities – to assure their effective functioning. These are used and developed to support an organisation’s strategy and its most important processes in order to achieve the organisation’s goals in the most efficient way. Presented in a transparent way, organisations can assure accountability towards citizens/customers on the legitimate use of available resources.

Key implications In our constantly changing society with growing com-plexity, public organisations are required to manage relationships with other organisations in both the pub-lic and private sectors in order to realise their strategic objectives.

Another consequence of this complexity is the need for an increasing active role of citizens/customers as key partners. The terms citizens/customers refers to the citizens’ varying role between stakeholder and service-user. In this criterion, CAF focuses on the involvement of citizens in public matters and the development of public policies and on the openness to their needs and expectations.

Public organisations are often subject to constraints and pressures, when managing their resources, over and above those normally encountered in the private sector. The ability of public organisations to gener-ate additional financial resources may be limited as may its freedom to allocate, or reallocate, its funds to the services it wishes to deliver. It is therefore criti-cal that they measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the services they are charged to deliver. Full finan-cial management, internal control and accountan-cy systems are the basis for sound cost accounting. Although public organisations often have little say in resource allocation, demonstrating the organisa-tions ability to deliver more and improved services for less cost, creates the opportunity for more innovative services or products to be introduced more quickly.It is important to identify the organisation’s knowledge and information requirements and these should feed into the strategy and planning process reviews. The or-ganisation should ensure that appropriate knowledge and information is made available timeously and in easily accessible formats to enable employees to do their jobs effectively.

The organisation should also ensure that it shares criti-cal information and knowledge with key partners and other stakeholders according to their needs.


4.1. Develop and implement key partnership relations

Examples:a. Identifying potential strategic partners and the na-

ture of the relationship (e.g. purchaser-provider, co-production, net services).

b. Establishing appropriate partnership agreements taking into account the nature of the relation-ship (e.g. purchaser – provider, collaborator/co-provider/co-producer of pro ducts/services, co-operation, net services).

c. Defining each party’s responsibilities in managing partnerships including controls.

d. Regularly monitoring and evaluating processes, results and the nature of partnerships.

e. Stimulating and organising task-specific partner-ships and developing and implementing joint projects with other public sector organisations.

f. Creating conditions for exchange of employees with partners.

g. Stimulating activities in the area of corporate so-cial responsibility.


4.2. Develop and implement partnerships with the citizens/customers

Examples:a. Encouraging the involvement of citizens/customers

in public matters and in political decision-making processes (e.g. consultation groups, survey, opin-ion polls, quality circles).

b. Being open to ideas, suggestions and complaints of citizens/customers and developing and using appropriate mechanisms to collect them (e.g. by means of surveys, consultation groups, question-naires, complaints boxes, opinion polls, etc.).

c. Ensuring a proactive information policy (e.g. about the competencies of the several public authorities, about their processes, etc.).

d. Ensuring transparency of the organisation as well as its decisions and development (e.g. by publish-ing annual reports, holding press conferences and posting information on the Internet).

e. Actively encouraging citizens/customers to organ-ise themselves, express their needs and require-ments and supporting citizen groups.



15

4.3. Manage Finances

Examples: a. Aligning financial management with strategic ob-

jectives.b. Ensuring financial and budgetary transparency.c. Ensuring the cost efficient management of

financial resources.d. Introducing innovative systems of budgetary and

cost planning (e.g. multi-annual budgets, pro-gramme of project budgets, gender budgets).

e. Permanently monitoring the costs of delivery and service standards of products and services offered by the organisation including the involvement of organisational units.

f. Delegating and decentralising financial responsi-bilities and balancing them with central controlling.

g. Basing investment decisions and financial control on cost/benefit-analysis.

h. Developing and introducing modern financial controlling (e.g. through internal financial audits, etc.) and promoting transparency of the financial control for all employees.

i. Creating parallel financial and cost account-ing systems including balance sheets (capital accounts).

j. Ensuring internal cost allocation (e.g. transfer pric-es: units are charged for internal services).

k. Including non-financial performance data in budget documents.

l. Introducing comparative analyses (e.g. bench-marking) between different actors and organisa-tions.


4.4. Manage information and knowledge

Examples:a. Developing systems for managing, storing and

assessing information and knowledge in the or-ganisation in accordance with strategic and op-erational objectives.

b. Ensuring that externally available relevant informa-tion is gained, processed and used effectively.

c. Constantly monitoring the organisation’s informa-tion and knowledge, ensuring its relevance, cor-rectness, reliability and security. Also aligning it with strategic planning and the current and future needs of stakeholders.

d. Developing internal channels to cascade informa-tion throughout the organisation to ensure that all employees have access to the information and knowledge relevant to their tasks and objectives.

e. Ensuring access and exchange of relevant infor-mation with all stakeholders and presenting infor-mation and data in a user-friendly way.

f. Ensuring, as far as is practicable, that key informa-tion and knowledge of employees is retained with-in the organisation in the event of their leaving the organisation.


4.5. Manage Technology

Examples: a. Implementing an integrated policy of tech-

nology management in accordance with the strategic and operational objectives.

b. Efficiently applying appropriate technology to: – Manage tasks. – Manage knowledge. – Support learning and improvement activities. – Support the interaction with stakeholders and

partners. – Support the development and maintenance of

internal and external networks.


4.6. Manage facilities

Examples: a. Balancing effectiveness and efficiency of physical

locations with the needs and expectations of us-ers (e.g. centralisation versus decentralisation of buildings).

b. Ensuring a safe, cost efficient and ergonomically suitable use of office facilities based on strategic and operational objectives, accessibility by pub-lic transport, the personnel needs of employees, local culture and physical constraints (e.g. open plan offices vs. individual offices, mobile offices) and technical equipment (e.g. number of PCs and copy-machines by service).

c. Ensuring an efficient, cost effective, planned and sustainable maintenance of buildings, offices and equipment.

d. Ensuring an efficient, cost effective and sustain-able use of transport and energy resources.

e. Ensuring appropriate physical accessibility of buildings in line with the needs and expectations of employees and citizens/customers (e.g. disa-bled access to parking or public transport).

f. Developing an integrated policy for managing physical assets, including their safe recycling/dis-posal, e.g. by direct management or subcontract-ing.



16

Criterion 5: Processes

Definition How the organisation identifies, manages, improves and develops its key processes in order to support strategy and planning. Innovation and the need to generate increasing value for its citizens/customers and other stakeholders are two of the main drivers in process development.

Key implications Each organisation that performs well is run by many processes, each process being a set of con-secutive activities that transform resources or in-puts into results or outputs and outcomes, there-by adding value. These processes can be of a different nature. The core processes are critical to the delivery of products or services. Management process-es steer the organisation and support processes de-liver the necessary resources. Only the most important of these processes, the key processes, are the object of the assessment in the CAF. A key to the identifica-tion, evaluation and improvement of key processes is how effectively they contribute in achieving the mis-sion of the organisation. Involving citizens/customers in the different stages of process management and taking into account their expectations contributes to their overall quality and reliability.

The nature of processes in public service organisations may vary greatly, from relatively abstract activities such as support for policy development or regulation of economic activities, to very concrete activities of serv-ice provision. In all cases, an organisation needs to be able to identify the key processes, which it performs in order to deliver its expected outputs and outcomes, considering the expectations of citizens/customers and other stakeholders.

The role of citizens/customers could operate at 3 lev-els:1. the involvement of representative citizens/custom-

ers, associations or ad hoc panels of citizens in the design of the organisation’s services and prod-ucts,

2. collaboration with citizens/customers in the imple-mentation of services and products,

3. empowerment of citizens/customers in order to re-alise or access services and products themselves.

Cross-functional processes are common in public administration. It is vital to successfully integrate the management of such processes, since from that inte-gration the effectiveness and efficiency of processes greatly depend. To that aim, well experimented forms of organisational integration should be pursued, such as the creation of cross-functional process manage-ment teams with the appointment of team leaders.

Examples of Public Administration processes are: * Core processes – core service provision related to the mission(s)

of the organisation, e.g. collecting taxes and paying social security benefits

– providing customer service through enquiry handling

– formulation and implementation of legislative policy

* Management processes – assessment of the quality of tax collection – decision-making processes* Support processes – budgeting and planning – processes for human resource management

For support units, key processes will be linked to their support function of the organisation which is responsi-ble for the delivery of the core business.

It is essential that processes are continually reviewed as design, innovation and new technologies arrive at an increasing pace to the market. In order to take advan-tage of potential improvements public organisations need to ensure that they have mechanisms in place to enable them to receive feedback from all stakeholders on product and service enhancements.


5.1. Identify, design, manage and improve processes on an ongoing basis

Examples: a. Identifying, describing and documenting key proc-

esses on an ongoing basis.b. Identifying process owners and assigning

responsibilities to them.c. Involving employees and other external stakehold-

ers in the design and development of key proc-esses.

d. Allocating resources to processes based on the relative importance of their contribution to the strategic aims of the organisation.

e. Gathering, recording and understanding le-gal requirements and other regulations relevant to the processes of the organisation, analys-ing them and making proposals for streamlin-ing legally integrated processes aimed at elimi-nating unnecessary administrative burdens and bureaucracy.

f. Implementing process indicators and setting citi-zen/customer-oriented performance goals.

g. Co-ordinating and synchronising processes.h. Monitoring and evaluating impacts of net serv-

ices/e-gov on the organisation‘s processes (e.g. efficiency, quality, effectiveness).

i. In conjunction with relevant stakeholders, improv-ing processes on the basis of their measured ef-ficiency, effectiveness and results (outputs and out-


17

comes).j. Analysing and evaluating key processes, risks and

critical success factors taking the objectives of the organisation and its changing environment into consideration.

k. Identifying, designing and implementing process changes leading to one-stop-principle services.

l. Measuring and reviewing the effectiveness of process changes and carrying out benchmarking to drive improvement.


5.2. Develop and deliver citizen/customer-oriented services and products

Examples: a. Involving citizens/customers in the design and

improvement of services and products (e.g. by means of surveys/feedback /focus-groups/inquiries concerning the suitability of services or products and whether they are effective taking into account gender and diversity aspects).

b. Involving citizens/customers and other stakehold-ers in the development of quality standards for services, products and information for citizens/customers.

c. Develop clear guidelines and regulations using plain language.

d. Involving citizens/customers in the design and development of information sources and channels.

e. Ensuring the availability of appropriate and reliable information with an aim to assist and sup-port citizens/customers.

f. Promoting accessibility of the organisation (e.g. flexible opening hours and documents in a variety of formats e.g. appropriate languages, internet, posters, brochures, Braille).

g. Promoting electronic communication and interac-tion with citizens/customers.

h. Developing sound response query handling and complaint management systems and procedures.


5.3. Innovate processes involving citizens/customers

Examples: a. Active approach to learning from innovations of

other organisations nationally and internationally.b. Involving stakeholders in process innovations e.g.

by piloting new services and e-government solu-tions.

c. Involving citizens/customers and stakeholders in process innovations.

d. Providing the resources necessary for process in-novations.

e. Actively identify, analyse and overcome obstacles to innovation.



19

Results

From Criterion 6 onwards, the focus of the assessment shifts from Enablers to Results. In the Results criteria we measure perceptions: what our people, citizens/customers and society think of us. We also have internal performance indicators which show how well we are doing against the targets we may have set for ourselves – the outcomes. The assessment of results requires a different set of responses, so the responses from this point onwards are based on the Results Assessment Panel (see CAF scoring and Assessment panels).


20

Criterion 6: Citizen/customer-oriented results

Definition The results the organisation is achieving in relation to the satisfaction of its citizens/customers with the or-ganisation and the products/services it provides.

Key implications Public sector organisations can have a complex rela-tionship with the public. In some cases it can be char-acterised as a customer relationship – especially in the case of direct service delivery by public sector organi-sations – and in other cases may be described as a citi-zen relationship, where the organisation is involved in determining and enforcing the environment in which economic and social life is conducted. Since the two cases are not always clearly separable, this complex relationship will be described as a citizens/customers relationship. Citizens/customers are the recipients or beneficiaries of the activity, products or services of the public sector organisations. Citizens/customers need to be defined but not necessarily restricted to only the primary users of the services provided. Public organi-sations deliver services according to local and/or cen-tral government policy and are held accountable for their performance to political stakeholders. Perform-ance against statutory requirements is covered under organisational results (Criterion 9). Public policy tar-gets are those set by national, regional and local gov-ernments which may or may not be citizens/customers driven. Citizens/customers satisfaction measures are normally based on areas that have been identified as important by customer groups and based on what the organisation is able to improve within its specific area of service.

It is important for all kinds of public sector organisa-tions to directly measure the satisfaction of their citi-zens/customers with regard to the overall image of the organisation, the products and services the organisa-tion provides, the openness of the organisation and the extent to which it involves citizens/customers. Or-ganisations typically use citizen/customer question-naires or surveys to record levels of satisfaction, but they may also use other complementary tools such as focus groups or user panels.

Some examples of information which may be collected include data on products and services, image of the organisation, politeness, helpfulness and friendliness of staff.

Assessment: Consider what results the organisation has achieved to meet the needs and expectations of citizens and customers, through:

6.1. Results of citizen/customer satisfaction measurements

Examples: a. Results regarding the overall image of the organi-

sation (e.g. friendliness and fairness of treatment; flexibility and ability to address individual solu-tions).

b. Results regarding involvement and participation.c. Results regarding accessibility (e.g. opening and

waiting times, one-stop-shops).d. Results relating to products and services (e.g.

quality, reliability, compliance with quality stand-ards, processing time, quality of advice given to the customers/citizens).

Award a score using the Results Panel

6.2. Indicators of citizen/customer-oriented measurements

Examples: Indicators regarding the overall image of the organisationa. Number and processing time of complaints (e.g.

resolution of conflict of interest cases).b. Extent of public trust towards the organisation and

its services or products.c. Waiting time.d. Handling/processing time of services delivery.e. Extent of employee training in relation to the ef-

fective handling of citizen/customer relationships (e.g. professionalism and friendly communication with, and treatment of, citizens/customers).

f. Indicators of complying with diversity and gender aspects.

Indicators regarding involvementg. Extent of involvement of stakeholders in

the design and the delivery of services and products and/or the design of decision-making processes.

h. Suggestions received and recorded.i. Implementation and extent of use of new and in-

novative ways in dealing with citizens/customers.

Indicators regarding products and servicesj. Adherence to published service standards (e.g.

citizens‘ charters).k. Number of files returned back with errors

and/or cases requiring repeated processing/com-pensation.

l. Extent of efforts to improve availability, accuracy and transparency of information.



21

Criterion 7: People results

Definition The results the organisation is achieving in relation to the competence, motivation, satisfaction and perform-ance of its people.

Key implications This criterion addresses the satisfaction of all the peo-ple in the organisation. Organisations typically use people (employee) surveys to record satisfaction lev-els, but they may also use other complementary tools such as focus groups, termination interviews and ap-praisals. They may also examine the performance of people and the level of skills development.Sometimes external constraints may limit the organi-sation’s freedom in this area. The constraints and how the organisation overcomes or influences constraints should therefore be clearly presented.

It is important for all kinds of public sector organisa-tions to directly record people results concerning the employees’ image of the organisation and its mission, the working environment, the organisation’s leader-ship and management systems, career development, the development of personal skills and the products and services the organisation provides.Organisations should have a range of internal people-related performance indicators through which they can measure the results they have achieved in relation to targets and expectations in the areas of people over-all satisfaction, their performance, the development of skills, their motivation and their level of involvement in the organisation.

Assessment: Consider what results the organisation has achieved to meet the needs and expectations of its people, through:

7.1. Results of people satisfaction and motivation measurements

Examples: Results regarding overall satisfaction with:a. The overall image and the overall performance of

the organisation (for society, citizens/customers, other stakeholders).

b. The level of employees´ awareness of conflicts of interest.

c. The level of employees´ involvement in the organ-isation and its mission.

Results regarding satisfaction with management and management systems:d. The organisation‘s top management and middle

management ability to steer the organisation (e.g. setting goals, allocating resources, etc.) and com-munication.

e. Rewarding individual and team efforts.f. The organisation‘s approach to innovation.

Results regarding satisfaction with working conditions:g. The working atmosphere and the organisation‘s

culture (e.g. how to deal with conflict, grievances or personnel problems).

h. The approach to social issues (e.g. flexibility of working hours, balance between work and per-sonal matters, health).

i. The handling of equal opportunities and fairness of treatment and behaviour in the organisation.

Results regarding motivation and satisfaction with ca-reer and skills development:j. The ability of the management to promote HRM-

strategy and systematic competency development and the employees’ knowledge about the goals of the organisation.

k. Results regarding people‘s willingness to accept changes.


7.2. Indicators of people results

Examples: a. Indicators regarding satisfaction (e.g. levels of

absenteeism or sickness, rates of staff turnover, number of complaints).

b. Indicators regarding performance (e.g. measures of productivity, results of evaluations).

c. Levels of using information and communication technologies by employees.

d. Indicators regarding skills development (e.g. par-ticipation and success rates in training activities, effectiveness of training budgets).

e. Evidence on the ability to deal with citizens/cus-tomers and to respond to their needs.

f. Degree of employee rotation inside the organisa-tion (mobility).

g. Indicators regarding motivation and involvement (e.g. response rates for staff surveys, number of proposals for innovation, participation in internal discussion groups).

h. Amount/frequency of rewarding individuals and teams.

i. Number of reported possible conflict of interest cases.



22

Criterion 8: Society results

DefinitionThe results the organisation is achieving in satisfying the needs and the expectations of the local, national and international community. This may include the percep-tion of the organisation‘s approach and contribution to quality of life, the environment and the preservation of global resources and the organisations‘ own internal measures of its effectiveness in contributing to society.

Key ImplicationsPublic Sector organisations have an impact on society by the very nature of their primary business or statutory mandate, and the outputs of these core activities will affect direct and indirect beneficiaries. These analyses of the immediate effects on the beneficiaries should be presented in the citizen/customer satisfaction (Cr. 6) and key performance results criteria (Cr. 9).

Criterion 8 will measure the intended or unintended impacts on society, i.e. the global effects of the organi-sation’s policies beyond its primary missions/ statutory mandate or core activities. In this direction, the analy-sis will consider the impacts derived from planned ob-jectives as well as the unintended consequences i.e. side effects which may have positive and/or negative effects on society.

The measures cover both qualitative measures of per-ception and quantitative indicators.They can be related to– economic impact– social dimension e.g. disabled people– quality of life– impact on the environment– quality of democracy.

Assessment: Consider what the organisation has achieved in respect of impact on society, with reference to

8.1. Results of societal measurements per-ceived by the stakeholders

Examples:a. General public‘s awareness of the impact of how

the organisation´s performance affects the quality of citizens/customers´ life.

b. General reputation of the organisation (e.g. as an em ployer/contributor to local/global society).

c. Economic impact on society at the local, regional, national and international level.

d. The approach to environmental issues (e.g. pro-tection against noise, air pollution).

e. Environmental impact on society at the local, re-gional, national and international level.

f. Impact on society with regard to sustainability at the local, regional, national and international level.

g. Impact on society taking into account quality of

democratic participation at the local, regional, na-tional and international level.

h. General public‘s view about the organisation’s openness and transparency.

i. Organisation‘s ethical behaviour.j. The tone of media coverage received.


8.2. Indicators of societal performance es-tablished by the organisation

Examples:a. Relationship with relevant authorities, groups and

community representatives.b. The amount of media coverage received.c. Support dedicated to socially disadvantaged citi-

zens.d. Support for integration and acceptance of ethnic

minorities.e. Support for international development projects.f. Support for civic engagement of citizens/custom-

ers and employees.g. Productive exchange of knowledge and informa-

tion with others.h. Programmes to prevent citizens/customers and

employees from health risks and accidents.i. Organisation activities to preserve and sustain the

resources (e.g. degree of compliance with environ-mental standards, use of recycled materials, use of environmentally friendly modes of transport, reduction of nuisance, harms and noise, reduction in use of utilities e.g. water, electricity, gas).



23

Criterion 9: Key performance results

DefinitionThe results the organisation is achieving with regard to its strategy and planning related to the needs and demands of the different stakeholders (i.e. external re-sults); and the results the organisation has achieved in relation to its management and improvement (internal results).

Key implications Key performance results relate to whatever the or-ganisation has determined are essential, measurable achievements for the success of the organisation in the short and longer term.They represent the capacity of policies and processes to reach goals and objectives including specific tar-gets, which are politically driven.

Key performance results can be divided into:1. External results: the measures of the effectiveness

of policies and services/products in terms of the capacity to improve the condition of direct ben-eficiaries: the achievement of key activities’ goals in terms of a) outputs – services and products and b) outcomes – effects of the organisation’s core activities on external stakeholders (effectiveness).

2. Internal results: the measures of the internal func-tioning of the organisation: its management, im-provement and financial performance (efficiency and economy).

These measures are likely to be closely linked to policy and strategy (Criterion 2), partnerships and resources (Criterion 4) and processes (Criterion 5).

Assessment: Consider the evidence of defined goals achieved by the organisation in relation to

9.1. External results: outputs and outcomes to goals

Examples: a. The extent to which the goals are achieved in terms

of output (delivery of products or services).b. Improved quality of service or product delivery

with respect to measurement results.c. Cost efficiency (outputs achieved at the lowest pos-

sible cost).d. Results of inspections and audits.e. Results of participation in competitions, quality

awards and the quality management system certi-fication (Excellence Awards – League table/Bench-mark).

f. Results of benchmarking/bench learning activi-ties.

g. Cost effectiveness (outcomes achieved at the low-est possible cost).


9.2. Internal results

Examples: Results in the field of management and innovationa. Evidence of involvement of all stakeholders in the

organisation.b. Results of the establishment of partnerships and

results of joint activities.c. Evidence of ability to satisfy and balance the needs

of all the stakeholders.d. Evidence of success in improving and innovating

organisational strategies, structures and/or proc-esses.

e. Evidence of improved use of information technol-ogy (in managing internal knowledge and/or in internal and external communication and net-working).

f. Results of inspections and audits.g. Process performance.

Financial resultsh. Extent to which budgets and financial targets are

met.i. Extent or trend to which part the organisation re-

lies on own fiscal resources and revenues from fees and earnings from selling services/goods.

j. Evidence of ability to satisfy and balance the financial interests of all stakeholders.

k. Measures of effective use of operating funds.l. Results of financial inspections and audits.



24

CAF Scoring and assessment panels

Why score?

Allocating a score to each sub criterion and criterion of the CAF model has 4 main aims:1. to provide information and give an indication on the

direction to follow for improvement activities.2. to measure your own progress, if you carry out

CAF assessments regularly, each year or eve-ry two years, considered to be good practice according to most quality approaches.

3. to identify good practices as indicated by high scoring for Enablers and Results. High scoring of Results are usually an indication of the existence of good practices in the Enablers field.

4. to help to find valid partners to learn from (bench-marking: How we compare; and bench learning: What we learn from each other).

With regard to bench learning however, it should be noted that comparing CAF scores has limited value and carries a risk, particularly if it is done without experienced external assessors trained to validate the scores in a homogeneous way in different public organisations. The main aim of bench learning is to compare the different ways of managing the enablers and achieving results. The scores, if validated, can be a starting point in this regard. That is how bench learn-ing can contribute to improvement.

How to score?

New in the CAF 2006 is that it provides two ways of scoring. The “classical” CAF scoring is the updated version of the CAF 2002 assessment panels. The “fine-tuned” CAF scoring is suitable for organisations that wish to reflect in more detail the analysis of the sub criteria. It allows you to score – for each sub criterion – all phases of the Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) cycle simultaneously.

The PDCA-cycle is the fundament of both ways of scor-ing. Compared to 2002 when the scale was set at 0-5, the scale has been revised and set at 0-100, this scale being more widely used and generally accepted at an international level.

1. CAF classical scoring

This cumulative way of scoring helps the organisation to become more acquainted with the PDCA-cycle and directs it more positively towards a quality approach.

The scores as defined in the CAF 2002 version are presented in the column “level 2002”. In the enablers assessment panel the PDCA phase is in place only when bench learning activities are part of the continu-ous improvement cycle.

In the results assessment panel a distinction is made between the trend of the results and the achievement of the targets.


25

Assessment panels 1

Instructions:– Choose the level that you have reached: Plan, Do,

Check or Act. This way of scoring is cumulative: you need to have accomplished a phase (e.g.: Check) before reaching the next phase (e.g.: Act).

– Give a score between 0 and 100 according to the level that you have reached inside the phase. The scale on 100 allows you to specify the degree of deployment and implementation of the approach.

PHASE ENABLERS PANEL LEVEL 2002

PLAN

DO

CHECK

ACT

PDCA

0

1

2

3

4

5

We are not active in this field We have no information or very anecdotal.

We have a plan to do this.

We are implementing / doing this.

We check / review if we do the right things in the right way.

On the basis of checking / reviews we adjust if necessary.

Everything we do, we plan, implement, check and adjust regularly and we learn from others. We are in a continuous improvement cycle on this issue.

SCORE

0-10

11-30

31-50

51-70

71-90

91-100

RESULTS PANEL SCORE LEVEL 2002

0-10

11-30

31-50

51-70

71-90

91-100

0

1

2

3

4

5

No results are measuredand / or no information is available.

Results are measured and show negative trendsand /or results do not meet relevant targets.

Results show flat trendsand / or some relevant targets are met.

Results show improving trendsand / or most of the relevant targets are met.

Results show substantial progressand / or all the relevant targets are met.

Excellent and sustained results are achieved. All the relevant targets are met.Positive comparisons with relevant organisations for all the key results are made.

Instructions:– Give a score between 0 and 100 for each sub cri-

terion on a scale divided in 6 levels (correspond-ing to the results panel of the CAF 2002).

– For each level, you can take into account either the trend, either the achievement of the target or both.


26

2. CAF fine-tuned scoring

The fine-tuned scoring is a simultaneous way of scor-ing closer to the reality where e.g. many public organi-sations are doing things (Do) but sometimes without enough planning (Plan).– In the enablers panel, the emphasis lays more on

the PDCA as a cycle and progress can be repre-sented as a spiral where in each turn of the cir-cle improvement may take place in each phase: PLAN, DO, CHECK and ACT.

– Bench learning activities are normally taken into account at the highest level of all the phases.

– This way of scoring gives more information on the areas where improvement is mostly needed.

– The results panel shows you if you have to acceler-ate the trend or focus on the targets achievement.

Assessment panels 2

Instructions for each sub criterion:– Read the definition of each phase (Plan, Do, Check

and Act);– Find evidence of strengths and weaknesses and

give a global judgement for each phase in the ap-propriate box. This judgement can be illustrated by some examples or evidence in order not to over-complicate the scoring exercise. However, those who want to go further can put all the examples or evidence in the different boxes of the 4 phases and calculate the average for each phase.

– Calculate the sum of the four phase scores and divide by 4 in order to obtain a score on 100 for the enabler sub criterion. This score should be plausible and consistent e.g. total scoring should not exceed 40 if any of the four evaluation criteria (Plan, Do, Check, Act) is lower than or equal to 20. It should not exceed 60 if any of the criteria is lower than 30.

PHASE

PLAN

DO

CHECK

ACT

Strongevidencerelated tomost areas

51-70

EVIDENCE

Very strongevidencerelated to all areas

71-90

EVIDENCE

0-10

No evidenceor justsome ideas

EVIDENCE

SCALE

EVIDENCE

Planning is based on stakeholders’needs and expectations. Planning isdeployed throughout the relevant partsof the organisation on a regular basis.

SCORE

Execution is managed through definedprocesses and responsibilities anddiffused throughout the relevant partsof the organisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Defined processes are monitored withrelevant indicators and reviewed throughout the relevant parts of theorganisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Correction and improvement actionsare taken following the check resultsthroughout the relevant parts of theorganisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Some goodevidencerelated to relevantareas

31-50

EVIDENCE

Some weak evidence,related tosome areas

11-30

EVIDENCE

Excellentevidence,comparedwith otherorganis-ations,related to all areas

91-100

EVIDENCE

TOTAL / 400

SCORE / 100

Enablers Panel

Areas of improvement


27

EXAMPLE of a fine-tuned scoring: Enablers – sub criterion 1.1: Provide direction to the organisation by developing its mission, vision and values

Synthesis of the evidence emerged in self-assessments (starting points for improvement planning and basis for scoring).1.1.a. A vision and a mission for the administration

was elaborated three years ago. It was re-quested by the director general and the dis-cussion involved all the first line managers. An elegant, coloured card with the vision and mis-sion statement was distributed to all employ-ees.

1.1.b Nothing has been done yet in the area of val-ues statement and code of conduct. The Hu-man Resources Manager has developed a project to this end. Middle management will be invited to a seminar to reflect together on the values of the organisation. The values will be crystallised into teaching what positions have to be taken in difficult situations.

1.1.c Employees, customers/citizens and other stakeholders have not been involved up to now in the vision and mission definition proc-ess. However, awareness of the importance of such involvements arose two years ago, when some managers of our administration partici-pated in TQM Seminars, particularly one dedi-cated to the CAF model. The decision was then taken to make internal and external surveys to collect employees’ and citizens perceptions. Results indicated that middle managers and employees considered the vision and mission as “image” statements, totally detached from reality and that the objectives quite often did not seem in tune with such statements. As far as customers are concerned, surveys indicated that alignment of management perceptions with customer perceptions is needed. Meet-ings with managers and employees and with representatives of citizens have been planned and will take place soon. The decision was also taken to conduct employees and custom-er surveys every year. An administration wide self-assessment is also being planned.

1.1.d The above mentioned surveys should guaran-tee that in the future the vision and mission statements will be periodically reviewed and updated taking into accounts customer/stake-holder needs and expectations; that employ-ee’s involvement will increase as well as com-munication within the organization.

The above findings have been placed in the following Enabler Matrix, to help elaborate a global scoring for the sub criterion.

Notice: that does not necessarily mean giving scores to the individual examples; the blank boxes of the matrix are used as a memo pad, to pass from the evidences collected during the sub criterion assess-ment to a global sub criterion scoring, and as a way to guide the discussion in the consensus meeting.


28

PHASE

PLAN

DO

CHECK

ACT

Strongevidencerelated tomost areas

51-70

EVIDENCE

Very strongevidencerelated toall areas

71-90

EVIDENCE

0-10

Noevidenceor justsome ideas

EVIDENCE

SCALE

EVIDENCE

Planning is based on stakeholders’needs and expectations. Planning isdeployed throughout the relevant partsof the organisation on a regular basis.

SCORE

Execution is managed through definedprocesses and responsibilities anddiffused throughout the relevant partsof the organisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Defined processes are monitored withrelevant indicators and reviewed throughout the relevant parts of theorganisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Correction and improvement actionsare taken following the check resultsthroughout the relevant parts of theorganisation on a regular basis

SCORE

Some goodevidencerelated torelevantareas

31-50

EVIDENCE

Some weakevidence,related tosome areas

11-30

EVIDENCE

Excellentevidence,comparedwith otherorganisations,related to allareas.

91-100

EVIDENCE

TOTAL / 400

SCORE / 100

Enablers Panel

1d

50

40

5

1a

1c

50

40

85

5

180

45

1b

85

– Scoring 1.1


29

Instructions– Consider separately the trend of your results for 3

years and the targets achieved in the last year.– Give a score for the trend between 0 and 100 on

a scale divided in 6 levels.– Give a score for the targets achievement of the last

year between 0 and 100 on a scale divided in 6 levels.

– Calculate the sum for the trends and targets achievement and divide by 2 in order to obtain a score on 100 for the result sub criterion.

EXAMPLE of a fine-tuned CAF scoring: Results – sub criterion 9.1: Key performance results. External results.

Synthesis of the evidence emerged in self-assessments (starting points for improvement planning and basis for scoring).In preparation on the strategic meeting in the begin-ning of the new working year, a report was prepared for the board of directors on the key performance re-sults of last year in order to optimise the strategic plan-ning for the next year. The conclusions of the report were clear: the performance’s goals were met for more than 50% and in comparison with the year before a progress of 10% was established. The appreciation of these conclusions was far from anonymous and gave way to intensive discussions among the members of the board.

TRENDS

TARGETS

Results Panel – Scoring 9.1.SCALE

SCORE

SCORE

Nomeasurement

No or anecdotalinformation

Negative trend

Results do notmeet targets

Flat trend ormodest progress

Few targets aremet

Sustainedprogress

Some relevanttargets are met

Substantialprogress

Most of therelevant targetsare met

Positive compar-ison with relevantorganisations forall results

All the targets aremet

TOTAL/200

SCORE/100

0-10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 91-100

45

65

110/200

55/100

TRENDS

TARGETS

Results PanelSCALE

SCORE

SCORE

Nomeasurement

No or anecdotalinformation

Negative trend

Results do notmeet targets

Flat trend ormodest progress

Few targets aremet

Sustainedprogress

Some relevanttargets are met

Substantialprogress

Most of therelevant targetsare met

Positive compar-ison with relevantorganisations forall results

All the targets aremet

TOTAL/200

SCORE/100

0-10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-90 91-100


30

Guidelines for improving organisations using CAF

The process of continuous improvement can be de-signed and carried out in a number of ways. The size of the organisation, the culture and prior experience with Total Quality Management tools are some of the parameters that help to determine what the most ap-propriate way of launching the TQM approach will be.

In this chapter we have identified a 10 step process of continuous improvement with CAF that may be consid-ered relevant to most organisations.

It is important to emphasise that the advice given here is based on the experience of the many organisations that have used CAF. However each improvement proc-ess is unique and therefore this description should be seen as an inspiration for the people responsible for the process of self-assessment rather than as a precise manual for the process.

Phase 1 – The start of the CAF journey

Step 1 DECIDE HOW TO ORGANISE AND PLAN THE SELF-ASSESSMENT

A high level of commitment and shared owner-ship between the senior management and the peo-ple of the organisation are most crucial elements in securing the success of the self-assessment process.

In order to gain commitment and ownership, the expe-rience of many organisations shows that a clear man-agement decision through a sound consultative process with the stakeholders of the organisation is necessary. This decision should clearly illustrate the willingness of the management to be actively involved in the process by recognising the added value of the self-assessment and guaranteeing the openness of mind, respect for the results and readiness to start improvement actions afterwards. It also includes the commitment to set aside the resources needed to carry out the self-assessment in a professional way.

Knowledge about the potential benefits of a CAF self-assessment and information about the structure of the model and the process of self-assessment are neces-sary elements in providing management with a basis for decision making. It is very important for all manag-ers to be convinced of these benefits from the outset.

Survey 2005 – The most important benefits of a CAF self-assessment The CAF users’ survey of 2005 shows that major ben-efits of a self-assessment include:

– Effective identification of the strengths of the organ-isation and the areas where improvement has to be made

– Identification of relevant improvement actions– Increased level of awareness and communication

throughout the organisation– People started to become aware and interested in

quality issuesIn relation to other TQM tools the CAF users generally find CAF to be easy to use, low cost and well adapted to the public sector.

In this phase it is vital that one or more persons in the organisation take responsibility for securing these basic principles. A good idea is to contact the organisation responsible for dissemination of CAF in your country (for information on this see www.eipa.eu) and either ask them to make a presentation of the CAF model or get information on/from other organisations that have already used the model and are willing to share their experience.

In order for the people of the organisation to support the process of self-assessment it is important that con-sultation takes place before the final decision about carrying out self-assessment has been made. Apart from the general benefits of carrying out self-assess-ment, experience shows that many people find CAF to be an excellent opportunity to gain more insight into their organisation and want to be actively involved in its development.

For some organisations it may also be relevant to seek the acceptance or approval of external stakeholders before deciding to carry out self-assessment. This may be the case with politicians or senior management of higher level organisations who are traditionally closely involved in management decision making. Key external stakeholders may have a role to play, particularly in data collection and processing information, and also potentially benefit from changes regarding some of the areas of improvement that may be identified.

Initial planning of the self-assessment Once a decision has been made to carry out self-as-sessment the planning process can start. One of the first elements in this – that may have been included in the management decision – is the definition of the scope and the approach of self-assessment.

A frequently asked question is whether the self-assess-ment has to cover the whole organisation or if sepa-rate parts such as units or departments can undertake self-assessment. The answer is that separate parts can perform self-assessment but in order to assess all cri-teria and sub criteria in a meaningful way, they should have enough autonomy to be considered as a mainly


31

autonomous organisation with a proper mission and significant responsibility for Human Resources and fi-nancial processes. In such cases the relevant supplier/customer relations as well as stakeholder relations be-tween the selected unit and the remaining part of the organisation should be assessed.

It is recommended to include in the management deci-sion the choice of the scoring panel to be used.Two ways of scoring are offered. An organisation should choose depending on the time available to invest in scoring and on its level of experience and maturity.

A very important action by top management to un-dertake in this phase is the appointment of a project leader for the self-assessment process. Tasks that are normally performed by the project leader include:1. Detailed planning of the project, including the

communication process;2. Communication and consultation with all stake-

holders regarding the project;3. Organising training of the self-assessment group;4. Gathering of supporting documents and evidence;5. Active participation in the self-assessment group;6. Facilitation of the consensus process;7. Editing of the self-assessment report;8. Supporting the management in prioritising

actions and outlining of the action plan.

The demands regarding the competences of the project leader are high. The person has to have both a high level of knowledge regarding his or her own organisa-tion, knowledge of the CAF model as well as knowl-edge about how to facilitate the process of self-assess-ment. Appointing the right project leader who has this knowledge and the confidence of senior management and people within the organisation is one of the key management decisions that can affect the quality and outcome of the self-assessment. Appropriate project management training is available at national and Eu-ropean level.

For some organisations the language and the exam-ples used in the CAF model are unfamiliar and too far away from their daily practise to be used directly. If this is not resolved early in the familiarisation of the model, it can later be an obstacle in the process of self-as-sessment. What can be done in such cases, in addi-tion to the training efforts that are later described, is to “adapt” the model to the language of the organisa-tion. Prior to embarking on this action it is a good idea to check if this has already been done by an organi-sation similar to your own. This can be done through the organisation responsible for disseminating CAF in your country or with the CAF Resource Centre at EIPA.

Step 2 COMMUNICATE THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROJECT

A very important planning activity once the project ap-proach has been defined is the outlining of a com-munication plan. This plan includes communication efforts targeted at all stakeholders in the project with a special emphasis on middle managers and people of the organisation.

Communication is a core field in all change manage-ment projects, but especially when an organisation is performing self-assessment. If communication regard-ing the purpose and the activities of the self-assessment is not clear and appropriate, it is likely that the self-as-sessment effort will be seen as “just another project” or “some management exercise”. The risk here is that these assumptions become self-fulfilling prophecies as there may be a reluctance from middle managers and other people to be fully committed or involved.

Survey 2005 – The importance of communi-cation to create ownership by the employees is generally underestimatedAn important conclusion of the latest CAF users’ survey is that the users of CAF find that they have generally not prioritised sufficiently the commu-nication efforts regarding employees during the proc-ess. The lessons learned show that one of the major potential benefits of CAF is to increase the level of awareness and communication across the organisa-tion. But this can only be realised if management and the people responsible for the CAF self-assessment are active at a very early stage in communicating and in-volving people and middle managers in the organisa-tion about the purpose and the potential benefits of self-assessment.

An important result of early communication is to stimulate the interest of some of the employees and managers to be directly involved in a self-assessment group. Involvement should ideally be pursued through personal motivation. Motivation should be the basic element that links people to the whole process of self-assessment. People should have a completely clear view of the purpose of the CAF self-assessment proc-ess: the improvement in the overall performance of the organisation. The communication policy on the CAF self-assessment process should focus on win-win outcomes for all stakeholders, people and citizens/cli-ents.

So clear and coherent communication to all stakehold-ers during the relevant phases of the project is key to securing a successful process and follow up action. The project leader along with the top management of the organisation should reinforce that policy by focus-ing on:1. how self-assessment can make a difference;2. why it has been given priority;3. how it is connected to the strategic planning of the

organisation;


32

4. how it is connected (for example as the first step to) to a general effort for improvement in the or-ganisation’s performance, for instance through the implementation of an innovative operational reform programme.

The communication plan should be differentiated and consider the following elements: focus group, mes-sage, medium, sender, frequency and tools.

Phase 2 – Self-Assessment Process

Step 3 COMPOSE ONE OR MORE SELF-ASSESSMENT GROUPS

The self-assessment group should be as representa-tive of the organisation as possible. Usually people from different sectors, functions, experience and levels within the organisation are included. The objective is to establish an as effective group as possible, while at the same time a group, which is able to provide the most accurate and detailed internal perspective of the organisation.

The experience of the CAF users shows that groups are composed with between 5-20 participants. However, in order to secure an effective and relatively informal working style, groups around 10 participants are gen-erally preferable.

If the organisation is very large and complex it could be relevant to compose more than one self-assessment group. In this case it is critical that the project design takes into consideration how and when the appropri-ate coordination of the groups will be taking place.

Participants should be selected on the basis of their knowledge of the organisation and their personal skills (e.g. analytical and communicative skills) rather than professional skills alone. They can be selected on a voluntary basis but the project leader and the man-agement remain responsible for the quality, the diver-sity and credibility of the self-assessment group.

The project leader of the group may also be the chair, this can help with project continuity but care should be taken in order to avoid conflicting interests. What is important is that the chair of the group is trusted by all the members of the group to be able to lead discus-sions in a fair and effective way that will enable eve-rybody to contribute to the process. The chair can be appointed by the group itself. An effective secretariat to help the chair and organise meetings is essential as well as good meeting facilities and ICT support.

A frequently asked question is whether senior manag-ers should be included in the self-assessment group. The answer to this will depend on the culture and tradition of the organisation. If management is involved, they can provide additional information and it will increase the likelihood that management has ownership to the later

implementation of the improvement actions identified. It also increases diversity/representation. However, if the culture is not likely to support this, then the quality of the self-assessment can be jeopardised if one or more of the group members feels inhibited and unable to contribute or speak freely.

Step 4 ORGANISE TRAINING

Information and training of managementIt could be of value to involve top, middle manage-ment and other stakeholders in self-assessment train-ing, on a voluntary basis, to widen knowledge and understanding of the concepts of TQM in general and self-assessment with CAF in particular.

Information and training of the self-assess-ment group The CAF model should be introduced and the purpos-es and nature of the self-assessment process explained to the group. If the project leader has been trained prior to this phase it is a very good idea that this per-son plays a major role in the training. In addition to theoretical explanations, training should also include practical exercises to open the minds of participants to the principles of total quality and also to experience consensus building as these concepts and behaviours may be unfamiliar to most members.

The CAF Resource Centre at EIPA arranges “train the trainer” sessions every year, and similar activities take place in a number of European countries.

A list provided by the project leader with all relevant documents and information needed to assess the or-ganisation in an effective way should be available for the group. One sub criterion from the enablers crite-ria and one from the results criteria could be assessed in common. This will give the group a better under-standing of how the CAF self-assessment is operating. A consensus has to be reached on how to evaluate evidence of strengths and areas for improvement and how to assign scores.

Another relevant session that will afterwards – during the consensus phase – save time is to get a common pic-ture of the key stakeholders of the organisation, those which have a major interest in its activities: customers/citizens, politicians, suppliers, partners, managers and employees. The most important services and products delivered to, or received from, these stakeholders and the key processes to assure this should also be clearly identified.


33

Step 5 UNDERTAKE THE SELF-ASSESSMENT

Undertake individual assessmentEach member of the self-assessment group, using the relevant documents and information provided by the project leader, is asked to give an accurate assess-ment, under each sub criterion, of the organisation. This is based on their own knowledge and experience of working in the organisation. They write down key words of evidence about strengths and areas for im-provement. It is recommended to formulate the areas for improvement as precisely as possible in order to make it easier to identify proposals for action at a later stage. They should then overview their findings and score each sub criterion, according to the scoring pan-el that has been chosen.

The chair must be available to handle questions from the members of the self–assessment group during the individual assessment. He/she can also coordinate the findings of the members in preparation for the consen-sus meeting.

Undertake consensus in groupAs soon as possible after the individual assessments, the group should meet and agree on the strengths, areas for improvement and the scores on each sub criterion. A process of dialogue and discussion is nec-essary, indeed essential as part of the learning experi-ence, to reach consensus as it is very important to un-derstand why differences regarding the strengths and areas of improvement and scoring exist.

The sequence for assessment of the nine criteria can be established by the self-assessment group. It is not necessary for this to be in strict numerical order.

The consensus finding How can the consensus be achieved?In the process of arriving at consensus, a four-step method may be used:1. Presenting all evidence concerning the identified

strengths and areas for improvement per sub cri-terion – identified by each individual;

2. Reaching consensus on strengths and areas for improvement. This is usually reached after the consideration of any additional evidence or infor-mation;

3. Presenting the range of individual scores under each sub criterion;

4. Reach consensus regarding the final scoring.

A good preparation of the meeting by the chairperson (e.g. collection of important information, coordination of the individual assessments) can lead to smooth run-ning of meetings and important time saving.

Survey 2005 – The added value of discussions

Overall, the practice of coming to conclusions was the same as observed in 2003: the majority reached con-sensus after discussions. The discussion itself is very often seen as the real added value of a self-assess-ment: when a consensus is reached, the end result is more then the pure sum of the individual opinions. It reflects the common vision of a representative group and in this way it corrects and goes beyond the sub-jective individual opinions. Clarifying evidences and expressing the background to different views on strengths and weaknesses are often considered to be more important than the scores.

The chair is responsible and has a key role in conducting this process and arriving at a group con-sensus. In all cases, the discussion should be based on clear evidence of actions undertaken and results achieved. In the CAF, a list of relevant examples is included, to help provide assistance in identifying ap-propriate evidence. This list is not exhaustive nor is it necessary to meet all the possible examples, only those relevant to the organisation. However, the group is en-couraged to find any additional examples which they feel are relevant to the organisation.

The role of the examples is to explain the content of the sub criteria in more detail in order to:1. explore how the administration answers the

requirements expressed in the sub criterion;2. provide assistance in identifying evidence; and3. be an indication of good practices in that particu-

lar area.

How to scoreThe CAF provides two ways of scoring: the classical approach and the fine-tuned approach. Both scoring systems are explained in detail in this brochure. It is recommended to use the classical scoring system if an organisation is not familiar with self-assessment and/or inexperienced in Total Quality Management tech-niques. Duration of the self-assessment exerciseComparing the reality and the preference, based on the survey 2005, 2 to 3 days seems to be rather short to do a reliable self-assessment whilst 10 days or more is too long. It is difficult to suggest an ideal time sched-ule for a CAF self-assessment as there are too many variables which include the objectives of management, the time, resources and expertise available for invest-ment, the availability of data, stakeholder time and information and political pressures. However to the majority of organisations a duration of up to 5 days is the norm. This includes individual assessment and consensus meeting(s). The large majority of organisations completed the whole CAF application process in 3 months, including


34

the preparation, the self-assessment, the drawing of conclusions and the formulation of an action plan.

Three months seems to be an ideal lapse of time to stay focused. Taking more time raises the risk of re-duced motivation and interest of all parties involved. Furthermore, the situation might have changed be-tween the start and the end of the self-assessment process. In such a case, the assessment and scoring may no longer be accurate. This is highly likely as im-proving an organisation using CAF is a dynamic, con-tinuous improvement process and therefore updating data and information is part of that process.

Step 6 DRAW UP A REPORT DESCRIBING THE RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT

A typical self-assessment report should follow the structure of CAF (as showed in scheme A) and consist at least of the following elements:1. The strengths and areas for improvement for each

sub criterion supported by relevant evidence;2. A score which is justified on the basis of the scor-

ing panel;3. Ideas for improvement actions.

In order to use the report as basis for improvement ac-tions it is crucial that Senior Management officially ac-cepts the self-assessment report, ideally endorses and approves it. If the communication process has worked well this should not be a problem. Senior Management should reconfirm its commitment to implementing the improvement actions. It is also essential at this stage to communicate the main results to people in the organi-sation and other participating stakeholders.

Phase 3 – Improvement plan/prioritisation

Step 7 DRAFT AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Survey 2005: Lack of measurements Many organisations encountered obstacles during their first CAF application. The lack of measurement has obviously been the major problem in many public organisations doing self-assessment for the first time, very often resulting in the installation of measurement systems as the first improvement action.

The self-assessment procedure should go beyond the self-assessment report in order to fulfil the purpose of CAF implementation. It should lead directly to a report of actions to improve the performance of the organisa-tion. This action plan is one of the main goals of the CAF self-assessment effort and also the means to feed vital information to the strategic programming system of the organisation. It must realise an integrated plan for the organisation to upgrade its functioning as a whole. Specifically the core logic of the report is that:

1. It is an integrated systematic action planning for the whole span of the organisation’s functionality and operability.

2. It comes as a result of the self-assessment report, so it is based upon evidence and data provided by the organisation itself and – absolutely vital – from the aspect of the people of the organisation.

3. It builds on the strengths, addresses the weak-nesses of the organisation and responds to each of them with appropriate improvement actions.

Prioritise areas of improvementIn preparing an improvement plan, the management might wish to consider the use of a structured ap-proach, including the questions:– Where do we want to be in 2 years in line with the

overall vision and strategy of the organisation?– What actions need to be taken to reach these

goals (strategy/task definition)?The process for building an improvement plan could be structured as follows: The management – in consultation with relevant stake-holders1. collects ideas for improvement from the self-as-

sessment report and collates these ideas for im-provement under common themes;

2. analyses the areas for improvement and suggest-ed ideas, then formulates improvement actions taking into account the strategic objectives of the organisation;

3. prioritises the improvement actions using agreed criteria to calculate their impact (low, medium, high) in the improvement areas, such as:

– strategic weight of the action (a combination of im-pact on the stakeholders, impact on the results of the organisation, internal/external visibility)

– ease of implementation of the actions (looking into the level of difficulty, the resources needed and the speed of realisation);

4. assigns ownership to each action as well as a time schedule and milestones & identifies the necessary resources (cf. scheme B).

It can be useful to link the ongoing improvement ac-tions to the CAF structure in order to keep a clear over-view.

One way to prioritise is to combine:1. the level of scoring per criterion or sub criterion

which gives an idea of the organisations’ perform-ance in all fields,

2. the key strategic objectives.

RecommendationsWhile a CAF self-assessment is recognised to be the start of a longer-term improvement strategy, the as-sessment will inevitably highlight a few areas that can be addressed relatively quickly and easily. Acting on them will help with the credibility of the improvement programme and represent an immediate return on time and training investment, it also provides an in-centive to continue – success breeds success.


35

It is a good idea to involve the people who carried out the self-assessment in the improvement activities. This is usually personally rewarding for them and boosts their confidence and morale. They may also become ambassadors for further improvement initiatives.

Survey 2005 – The members of the Self as-sessment groups (SAG)

The members of the SAG have invested a lot of their energy in the exercise, very often besides their usual daily work. Very often they start their work in the SAG with some suspicion about the usefulness of the task, the engagement of the management, the dangers of being open and honest etc. After a while, when they see that things are taken seriously, motivation and even some enthusiasm raise and at the end they take the full ownership of the results. They have the po-tential to become the most motivated candidates for improvement teams and should be treated in accord-ance with this role.

At best, the action plan resulting from the self-assess-ment should be integrated into the strategic planning process of the organisation and become part of the overall management of the organisation.

Step 8 COMMUNICATE THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

As mentioned previously, communication is one of the critical success factors of a self-assessment and the improvements actions that follow. Communication ac-tions must provide the appropriate information with the appropriate media to the appropriate target group at the appropriate moment: not only before or dur-ing but also after the self-assessment. An organisation should decide individually whether or not it makes the self-assessment report available, but it is good prac-tice to inform the whole staff about the results of the self-assessment i.e. the main findings of the self-as-sessment, the areas in which action is most needed, and the improvement actions planned. If not, the pos-sibility to create an appropriate platform for change and improvement runs the risk of being lost. In any communication about results it is always good practice to highlight the things that the organisation does well and how it intends to further improve – there are many examples of organisations taking for granted their strengths sometimes forgetting, or even not realising, how important it is to celebrate success.


36

Step 9 IMPLEMENT THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

As described in step 7, the formulation of the priori-tised improvement action plan is very important. Many of the examples in the CAF model can be considered as a first move towards improvement actions. Existing good practices and management tools can be linked to the different criteria of the model. Examples of them are shown below.

The implementation of these improvement actions should be based on a suitable and consistent ap-proach, a process of monitoring and assessment; deadlines and results expected should be clarified; a responsible person for each action (an “owner”) should be assigned, and alternative scenarios for complex ac-tions should be considered.

Any quality management process should be based on regular monitoring of implementation and evalu-ation of the outputs and outcomes. With monitoring it is possible to adjust what was planned in the course of implementation and post evaluation (results and out-comes), to check what was achieved and its overall impact. To improve this it is necessary to establish ways to measure the performance of the actions (perform-ance indicators, success criterion, etc). Organisations could use the Plan-Do-Check and Act cycle (PDCA) to

manage improvements actions. To fully benefit from the improvements actions they should be integrated in the ordinary processes of the organisations.

On the basis of the CAF self-assessment more and more countries are organising recognition schemes. The CAF self-assessment could also lead to a recogni-tion from EFQM Levels of Excellence (www.efqm.org).

Implementation of CAF action plans facilitates the permanent use of management tools such as Balanced Scorecard, customer and employee’s satisfaction surveys, performance management sys-tems, etc.

Survey 2005 – CAF as an introduction to TQM

The study shows that the use of quality or management instruments was limited before us-ers applied CAF. Most used are customer and employees satisfaction surveys, external and internal audits, ISO 9000/2000 standard(s) with and without certification, project management and BSC. The ambition to use more of these tools in the future is very high.

ENABLERS RESULTS

VAVV TION AND LEARNINGAA

LeadershipKey

PerformanceResults

Processes

People People Results

Strategy&Planning

Partnership&Resources

Citizen/CustomerOrientedResults

SocietyResults

The CAF Model

ISO9000

UserManual

MissionDevelopment

PerformanceManagement

ISO14000

Citizen orService Charters

Budgeting,Accounting

Investorsin People

Improvement actionsBSC

PeopleSurveys Audits

Citizen/Customer Surveys

ISO9000


37

Step 10 PLAN NEXT SELF-ASSESSMENT

Using the PDCA cycle to manage the Action Plan im-plies a new assessment with CAF.

Monitor progress and repeat the assessmentOnce the improvement action plan is formulated and the implementation of changes has begun it is important to make sure that the changes have a positive effect and are not having an adverse effect on things that the organisation was pre viously doing well. Some organisations have built regular self-assessment into their business planning process – their assessments are timed to inform the annual setting of objectives and bids for financial resources.

The evaluation panels of the CAF are simple but pow-erful tools to use when assessing the on-going progress of the improvement action plan.

Survey 2005 – CAF is generally repeated every 2nd year

The organisations consent that in order to be effective, the CAF has to be applied several times. There is a preference towards the use of CAF every 2 years (44%). The investments in the exercise and the time needed to generate results in the improvement actions support this view.


38

Phase 1 – The start of the CAF journey

Step 1 Decide how to organise and plan the self-assessment (SA)

– Assure a clear management decision in con-sultation with the organisation

– Define the scope and the approach of the SA – Choose the scoring panel – Appoint a project leader

Step 2 Communicate the self-assessment project

– Define and implement a communication plan – Stimulate involvement of the staff in the SA – Communicate during the different phases to

all the stakeholders

Phase 2 – Self-Assessment Process

Step 3 Compose one or more self-assess-ment groups

– Decide on the number of self assessment groups

– Create a self assessment group that is relevant for the whole organisation in all its aspects, respecting a set of criteria

– Choose the chair of the group(s) – Decide if the manager should be part of the

self-assessment group

Step 4 Organise training – Organise information and training of the

management team – Organise information and training of the self-

assessment group – The project leader provides a list with all rel-

evant documents – Define the key stakeholders, the products

and services that are delivered and the key processes

Step 5 Undertake the self-assessment – Undertake individual assessment – Undertake consensus in group – Score

Step 6 Draw up a report describing the re-sults of self-assessment

Phase 3 – Improvement plan/ prioritisation

Step 7 Draft an improvement plan, based on the accepted self-assessment report

– Prioritise improvement actions – Differentiate the actions within realistic time

scales – Integrate the action plan in the normal

strategic planning process

Step 8 Communicate the improvement plan

Step 9 Implement the improvement Plan – Define a consistent approach of monitor-

ing and assessing the improvement actions, based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle

– Appoint a responsible person for each action – Implement the appropriate management tools

on a permanent basis

Step 10 Plan next self-assessment – Evaluate the improvement actions by a new

self-assessment

Ten steps to improve organisations with CAF


39

Scheme A – Pro forma self-assessment sheet for classical scoring

Scheme B – Action sheet

Criterion 1. Leadership

Sub-criteria

Evaluation of Criterion 1Consider evidence of what the organisation’s leadership is doing to

Subcriteria1.1. Provide direction for the organisation by developing its mission, vision and values. 1.2. Develop and implement a system for the management of organisation, performance and change1.3. Motivate and support the people in the organisation and act as a role model1.4. Manage relations with politicians and other stakeholders in order to ensure shared responsibility

Strengths Areas for improvement Score & Justification/100 (Optional) Action items

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

Total/400

Averageon 100

Action programme 1: (e.g.Leadership)Action 1.1 description of the action

Action leader: the person or service who is in charge of the action

Contact:

Scope

Stakeholders

Strengths as defined in self-assessment

Context and areas for improvement

Alternatives to explore

Constraints

Human resources needed(in man/days)

Budget

Deliverable

Starting date

Estimated Deadline

Sponsor: the highest authority that is responsible for the item and wants and supports a specificaction; could be considered as the end user

Action team: the individuals identified to work in implementing the action; can be people from insideand/or outside the organisation


40

Bench learning

1. DefinitionThe main purpose of establishing bench learning and/or benchmarking activities is to find better ways of do-ing things with a view to improving overall organisa-tion performance. This is normally based on better re-sults achieved in other organisations. At its simplest, benchmarking is a process by which an organisation finds relevant organisations with which it can compare, or benchmark, its own organisation and performance. The technique can be a powerful and effective tool for organisational development, as it exploits sound ba-sic principles such as “not re-inventing the wheel” and “learning from others”. The CAF, and other relevant organisational analysis tools, can be used to support the purpose.

Unlike classical benchmarking, bench learning does not necessarily include searching for comparable or-ganisations and using clear indicators for direct com-parisons. It emphasises more the process of learning from others rather than making comparisons. The goal of bench learning is to learn from the strengths of other organisations, to learn from them the things they do well, to search for inspiration in our own work and to learn from and to avoid the mistakes that others have made. It is an active, continuous process and not just a comparison of benchmarks: facts and measure-ments.

Good practices are usually inextricably linked with bench learning. The bench learning partners chosen should be organisations employing good practices which- when adapted and implemented in your own organisation – lead to improved performance. It is worth noting that when searching for bench learning partners the search should not be restricted to simi-lar organisations, indeed innovation is often inspired through learning from dissimilar cross sector partners. By implementing in your own organisation what you have learnt through the bench learning process you are inevitably creating your own good practices.

2. CAF and Bench learningSelf-assessment is a preliminary step towards the proc-ess of bench learning and the subsequent changes to be implemented as it allows for a diagnosis of the or-ganisation – the knowledge and understanding of its strengths and areas for improvement. Prior to intro-ducing bench learning, it is important to have a clear picture of the current performance of the organisation in order to decide on the areas/criteria that will be used as the basis for the improvement process.

Bench learning using CAF thus implies that an organi-sation has assessed its performance in relation to at least four key areas: 1. The people in the organisation2. The customers3. The environment in which the organisation

operates4. The overall performance of the organisation

An assessment of results in these key areas will give us a comprehensive view of what an organisation is achieving and will provide us with performance data and appropriate metrics.

However, in order to offer the full range of benefits that can be obtained by a bench learning activity, it is also necessary to consider the question of governance and how the organisation is managed; this is reflected in the enablers criteria of the CAF model, which de-scribe how the organisation approaches issues such as the setting of objectives, the development of human resources, the function of leadership, resources man-agement and processes, etc.

Every function, process and task of the organisation can be the subject of bench learning. The advantage of linking bench learning initiatives to CAF is that the CAF framework with the 9 criteria and 28 subcriteria can be used to identify the organisations problem ar-eas and look for appropriate bench learning partners that have performed well in the given areas.A self-assessment with CAF should lead to the drawing up of an action plan addressing the areas of improve-ment. Bench learning with other organisations is just one way to realise these improvement actions. As in the case for self-assessment, bench learning has an inherent idea of continuity and performance improve-ment over the long term.

Given the increased use of CAF in Europe, it has be-come easier to find bench learning partners through CAF. The EIPA CAF resource centre, with the help of the national correspondents and its network of organisa-tions, keeps track of CAF users in Europe and invites them to introduce their good practices in the EIPA da-tabase.

When registering as a CAF user at the website of the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) –www.eipa.eu – an organisation is able to register its organisation details, its CAF self-assessment scores (optional & confidential) and information on its good practices. By offering key information the database can help public sector organisations identify suitable bench learning partners i.e. to allow a search for CAF users in a particular country, sector of activity, or good practice area.

3. Bench learning cycle and projectSchematically, bench learning can be presented as a 5-step cycle:1. Plan 2. Collect, measure and compare 3. Analyse 4. Adapt5. Evaluate and repeat


41

1. Plan In the first step of bench learning projects – the plan-ning – suitable partners are searched, identified and approached. Bench learning projects can be set up among two or more partners. It is very important to ap-point a project manager in each organisation. Among the project participants a coordinator can be chosen. The partners must agree upon the areas and/or results that will be addressed taking into account the roles and contributions of the various partners. They should always have in mind balancing the contributions made and benefits received by the partners, creating a win-win situation for all participants. The partners should also agree a code of conduct which may include dead-line conformities and rules on confidentiality, manage-ment and security of information.

2. Collect, measure and compare During the second stage, interesting procedures and suggestions from the partner organisations to address the identified problems are collected as well as results achieved in the relevant areas. This data gathering can be done by well prepared questionnaires, through participant meetings and/or by site visits. All informa-tion collected – information on successes and failures – should be compared and/or measured and differ-ences and preconditions for success identified.

3. AnalyseThe third step is the analysis. Participant organisations are asked to define the causes of the problems that occurred in each area. They are also asked, wherever possible, to determine the root causes of problems and to understand how the reasons can be key to mak-ing the successful first steps in resolution of problems. Once the problem causes are known, it is necessary to choose or adapt good practices or identify other po-tentially successful solutions. It is also recommended that project participants determine why some proce-dures, results or methods are more suitable and suc-cessful than others and document these findings.

4. AdaptThe fourth stage is the implementation. It includes the selection of good ideas, suggestions, procedures and solutions and their introduction into the daily practice of the organisation. The full agreement, involvement and participation of employees at this stage is crucial to successful implementation. Employees should also of course be aware of the progress of the project at all stages as part of the organisation’s normal communi-cation channels.

A final report should be drafted including a list of the good practice suggestions, their implementation and expected results/outcomes.

progress and repeat

5. EVALUATE(what, how, when,with whom)

1. PLAN

areas for learning

3. ANALYSE

BENCH LEARNING CYCLE

the good practices in yourorganisation

4. IMPLEMENT

interesting procedures,strengths and results

2. COLLECT, MEASUREAND COMPARE

Bench learning Cycle


42

5. Evaluate and repeat The final stage is an evaluation of the results of the project. An assessment is made of the results of the bench learning project and decisions are taken on the next steps. These steps may include improving exist-ing processes, including new suggestions/ideas – the main point here is that continuous improvement is a dynamic process and affects, and therefore necessi-tates the involvement of, all stakeholders. To measure the improvements achieved on an ongoing basis it is important to monitor progress, it is therefore recom-mended that organisations repeat a full self-assess-ment based on the CAF Model.

4. Potential Pitfalls – To limit yourself to your own sector to look for

bench learning partners. Some processes such as the measurement of customer or people sat-isfaction – although from different sectors – are common and can be compared effectively with different kinds of organisations. It’s about “get-ting out of the box”;

– To focus only on the comparison measures of the performance, without taking into account the processes and the activities that lead to good practices;

– To expect that bench learning is going to be fast or easy;

– Spending too much time and resource in one specific phase of the process;

– Have the expectation that all the components of the organisation can be compared with other organisations;

– Asking for information and data without be-ing prepared to share your own data and in-formation with others, and inversely, to expect that other organisations will openly share infor-mation that is valuable to them in commercial terms, although in our experience most organi-sations are happy to share most information if the right partnership is established at the out-set; respecting others and working in the true spirit of partnership is fundamental to successful bench learning projects.;

– The longer the bench learning process takes, the more difficult it is to maintain enthusiasm and the commitment of people responsible for promoting action and ultimately its implementa-tion.


43

Glossary

Accountability Accountability is the obligation to answer for responsi-bilities that have been conferred and accepted and to report on the utilisation and management of resources entrusted.The people who accept accountability are responsible for answering questions and reporting on resources and operations that are under their control to those people who have to hold accountability. So both parts have their duties.

Appraisal/Performance appraisal“Performance appraisal” needs to be understood in the management context. Usually, the manage-ment system of an organisation will include the as-sessment of individual employees’ job performance. This practice helps to monitor the departmental and overall organisational performance by aggregating the individual performance at different management levels within the organisation. The personal appraisal interview between the individual employee and his/her line manager is the most common way for appraisal to be carried out. During the interview, in addition to an appraisal of performance, other aspects of the in-dividual’s employment can be assessed including level of job knowledge and competences from which train-ing needs can be identified. In a TQM approach, the PDCA, based on continuous improvement, is used at the individual level: PLAN the job for the coming year, realise the job (DO), CHECK your realisation during the performance appraisal interview and adapt (ACT) if necessary for the next year: the objectives, the means and the competences.

There are several ways to increase the objectivity of performance appraisal:– The upward appraisal where managers are evalu-

ated by employees directly reporting to them.– The 360 degrees appraisal where managers are

evaluated from different points of views: general managers, peers, collaborators and customers.

Action PlanA document which is a plan of tasks, allocation of responsibilities, goals for the implementation of the project (e.g. targets/deadlines) and resources needed (e.g. hours, money).

AuditAuditing is an independent appraisal function to ex-amine and evaluate the activities of an organisation and its results. The most common audits are: financial audit, operational audit, ICT audit, compliance audit and management audit. Three levels of auditing con-trol activity can be distinguished:– Internal control carried out by management.– Internal auditing by an independent unit of the organi-

sation. In addition to compliance/regulation activities it may also have a role in controlling the effectiveness of the organisations internal management.

– External auditing done by an independent body from outside the organisation.

Balanced ScorecardThe Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a whole of quanti-tative measurements evaluating to what extent the organisation succeeds in realising its mission and strategic objectives. These measurements are built up around four viewpoints: innovation and learning (people management), internal processes, customers, and financial management. The indicators of each ap-proach are linked to each other through a cause-effect relationship. These relationships are based on hypoth-esises that have to be monitored permanently.

The BSC is also very useful as a communication tool for management to inform the people in the organisa-tion and the stakeholders to what extent the strategic plan has been realised.

The Balanced Scorecard is increasingly used in the public sector in Europe.

It should be noted that the Balanced Scorecard can be used within CAF assessment.

BenchmarkA measured achievement at a high level (sometimes referred to as “best-in-class” see Benchmarking be-low); a reference or measurement standard for com-parison; or a performance level which is recognised as the standard of excellence for a specific process.

BenchmarkingThere are numerous definitions of benchmarking but the key words associated with benchmarking are ‘to make comparison with others ‘

“Benchmarking is simply about making comparisons with other organisations and then learning the lessons that those comparisons reveal“ (Source: European Benchmarking Code of Conduct).

GENERAL MANAGERS

MANAGER /INDIVIDUALS

COLLABORATORS

CLIEN

TSPEE

RS


44

In practice, benchmarking usually encompasses:– regularly comparing aspects of performance

(functions or processes) with those organisations which are considered to be good practitioners; sometimes reference is made to best in class but as no one can ever be certain as to who is best the term good is preferred;

– identifying gaps in performance; – seeking fresh approaches to bring about improve-

ments in performance; – following through with implementing improve-

ments; and – following up by monitoring progress and review-

ing the benefits.

Benchmarking in European Public Administrations usually focuses on the learning aspects and is now more commonly referred to as ‘Bench learning’ as learning how to improve through sharing knowl-edge, information, and sometimes resources, is recognised to be an effective way of introducing organisational change. It reduces risks, is efficient and saves time.

– Strategic benchmarking Strategic Benchmarking is used where organisa-

tions seek to improve their overall performance by examining the long-term strategies and general approaches that have enabled high-performers to succeed. It involves comparisons of high-level aspects, such as core competencies; the devel-opment of new products and services; a change in the balance of activities or an improvement in capabilities for dealing with changes in the back-ground environment.

Best/Good practiceSuperior performances, methods or approaches that lead to exceptional achievement. Best practice is a rel-ative term and sometimes indicates innovative or inter-esting business practices, which have been identified through benchmarking. As with Benchmark it is prefer-able to talk about “good practice” since one cannot be sure that there is not a better one.

Bottom-upDirection of the flow of, for example, information or decisions from lower levels of an organisation to high-er levels. The opposite is top-down.

BrainstormingUsed as a team working tool to generate ideas without constraints in a short period of time. The most impor-tant rule is to avoid any kind of criticism during the ideas production phase.

Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)We can always make further improvements to an ex-isting process by means of minor adaptation (Kaizen approach). In some case, this approach is no longer suitable for accomplishing the required goals and it may be necessary to redesign the whole process. We

call this approach BPR (Business process Re-engineer-ing) or simply re-engineering. The idea of BPR is to completely redesign the process, which creates oppor-tunities for making a big leap forward or for accom-plishing an important breakthrough. Once this new process has been implemented, you may then return to the process of searching for ways to make gradual continual improvements to optimise the process.

Change managementChange management involves both generating the needed changes in an organisation, usually preceded by Modernisation and Reform agendas, and master-ing the dynamics of change by organising, implement-ing and supporting the change.

Code of conduct May be expressed or implied, Rules and Guidelines, for standards of behaviour for individuals, profession-al groups, teams or organisations. Codes of conduct may also apply to specific activities, such as auditing or benchmarking and often refer to ethical standards.

CompetenceCompetences include the knowledge, skills and atti-tudes of an individual used in practise in a job situ-ation. When an individual is able to carry out a task successfully he/she is regarded as having reached a level of competence.

Conflict of interest A “conflict of interest” in the public sector refers to a conflict between the public duty and the private inter-est of a public official, in which a public official’s pri-vate-capacity interest could improperly influence the performance of his/her official duties. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of inter-est can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly.

Consensus As the word implies this is about reaching agreement and usually follows an initial self-assessment when in-dividual assessors get together to compare and discuss their individual assessments and individual scores. The process usually ends with individual assessors reach-ing agreement with a combined overall score and as-sessment for the organisation.

Consensus or Self-assessment reportA report describing the results of self-assessment. This report must include strengths and areas of improve-ment for the organisation. It may also contain (option-al) proposals for improvement in some key projects.

Continuous improvement processThe ongoing improvement of business processes in terms of quality, economy or cycle time. The involve-ment of all stakeholders of an organisation is normally a pre-requisite in this process.


45

Corporate social responsibilityCorporate Social Responsibility is a commitment by private and public sector organisations to contribute to sustainable development working with employees, their families, local communities, and society at large to improve the quality of life. The aim is to bring ben-efits both for organisations and wider society.

Cost effectivenessThe relationship between the effects that are implied by the goals of the organisation and the costs – possi-bly including the full social cost – of achieving them. See also effective-ness.

Critical success factor The prior condi-tions that must be fulfilled in order that an intended strategic goal can be achieved. It highlights those key activities or results where satisfactory performance is essential in order for an organisation to succeed.

Citizen/CustomerThe term citizen/customer is used to emphasise the dual relationship between the public administration on the one hand, the users of public services and, on the other hand, all the members of the public, who as citizens and taxpayers have a stake in the services and their outputs.

DiversityDiversity relates to differences. It may refer to val-ues, attitudes, culture, philosophy or religious convictions, knowledge, skills, experience and lifestyle between groups, or individuals within a group. It may also be on the basis of gender, national or ethnic ori-gin, disability or age.

In public administration a diverse organisation would be considered to be one which reflects the society it serves.

Economy Economy and economising refer to prudent financial management including reducing costs through more efficient purchasing processes and saving money with-out affecting the quality of outputs or objectives.

Effectiveness Effectiveness is the relation between the set goal and the impact, effect or outcome achieved.

EfficiencyOutputs in relation to inputs or costs. Efficiency and Productivity may be regarded as one and the same. Productivity may be measured in ways that capture ei-ther the input of all factors of production (total factor productivity) or a specific factor (labour productivity or capital productivity).

Efficiency – Effectiveness – Economy

eGovernmentThe use of Information and Communication Technol-ogy (ICT) in public administrations. Combined with or-ganisational change and new skills it helps to improve public services and democratic processes and also strengthen support to public policies. eGovernment is regarded as an enabler to realise a better and more efficient administration. It can improve the develop-ment and implementation of public policies and help the public sector to cope with the potentially conflicting demands of delivering more and better services with fewer resources.

EmpowermentA process by which more authority is given to an in-dividual or a group of people in the decision mak-ing process, It may apply to citizens or employees by involving the person/group and by granting them a degree of autonomy in their actions/decisions.

EthicsEthics in Public Service may be defined as those com-mon values and norms to which public servants sub-scribe in carrying out their duties. The moral nature of these values/norms, which may be stated or implicit, refer to what is considered to be right, wrong, good or bad behaviour. Whereas values serve as moral princi-ples, norms may also state what is legally and morally correct in a given situation.

EvaluationExamining whether actions undertaken have given desired effects and whether other actions could have achieved a better result at a lower cost.

GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

COST EFFECTIVENESS

ACTIVITIES OUTPUT OUTCOME/IMPACTRESOURCES

EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESSECONOMY

OBJECTIVES


46

EvidenceInformation that supports a statement or fact. Evidence is considered to be essential in forming a firm conclu-sion or a judgement.

ExcellenceOutstanding practice in managing an organisation and achieving results which are based on a set of Fun-damental Concepts from Total Quality Management as formulated by EFQM. These include: results orien-tation, customer focus, leadership and constancy of purpose management by processes and facts, involve-ment of people, continuous improvement, and innova-tion, mutually beneficial partnerships, corporate social responsibility.

Follow-upSubsequent to a self-assessment process and changes to an organisation, a follow-up aims at measuring goal achievement against stated objectives. The anal-ysis may result in the launching of new initiatives and adjusting strategy and planning in accordance with the new circumstances.

GovernanceThe main elements of good public governance are de-termined by the appointed framework of authority and control. It will set out: the reporting obligation on the goals achievement, transparency of actions and deci-sion making process to the stakeholders, efficiency and effectiveness, responsiveness to the needs of society, anticipation of the problems and trends and respect of the law and rules.

Human resources managementManaging, developing and utilising the knowledge, skills and full potential of the employees of an organi-sation in order to support policy and business planning and the effective operation of its processes.

IndicatorsMeasures that are indicative i.e. showing the outcome of an action.

– Performance Indicators These are the numerous operational measures

used in Public Administration to help us – Monitor – Understand – Predict and – Improve how we function and perform.

There are several terms used to measure organisation-al performance; outcomes, measures, indicators, pa-rameters. However measurement terminology is less important and we should use terms with which we are comfortable and familiar. If we follow Pareto’s principle we realise that around 20% of what we do will deliver 80% of our outcomes. It is important therefore that we at least measure the performance of those processes that are essential to the delivery of our desired results.

– Key performance Indicators Those measures that are most critical, and meas-

ure the performance of those key processes, es-sentially contained in CAF criteria 4 and 5, which are most likely, to influence the effectiveness and efficiency of our key performance outcomes.

A good example of customer satisfaction may be meas-urements in customer/citizen results of the performance of the processes we have put in place for delivering cus-tomer/citizen products and services.

InnovationInnovation is the process of translating good ideas into new services, processes, tools, systems and human interaction. An organisation may be described as in-novative when an existing task is performed in a way new to the workplace, or when the organisation offers customers a new service in a different way such as self-service via the internet.

InputAny kind of information, knowledge, material and oth-er resources used for production.

ISO ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is a global network that identifies what International Standards are required by business, government and society, develops them in partnership with the sectors that will put them to use, adopts them by transparent procedures based on national input and delivers them to be implemented worldwide. ISO Standards specify the requirements for state-of-the-art products, serv-ices, processes, materials and systems, and for good conformity assessment, managerial and organisation-al practice.

Key performance resultsThe results the organisation is achieving with regard to its strategy and planning related to the needs and de-mands of the different stakeholders (external results); and the results of the organisation in relation to its management and improvement (internal results).

Knowledge management Knowledge Management is the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge – and its associated processes of creation, organisation, diffusion, use and exploitation.

It is important to note that knowledge encompasses both tacit knowledge (that contained in people‘s minds) and explicit knowledge (codified and expressed as information in databases, documents etc.). A good knowledge programme will address the processes of knowledge development and transfer for both these basic forms. The most vital knowledge in most or-ganisations is often related to: Customer Knowledge, Knowledge in Processes, Knowledge in Products and Services, customised to users‘ needs, Knowledge in People, Organisational Memory, drawing on lessons


47

from the past or elsewhere in the organisation, Knowl-edge in Relationships, Knowledge Assets, measuring and managing intellectual capital. A wide variety of practices and processes are used in knowledge man-agement. Some of the more common ones are: Creat-ing and Discovering, Sharing and Learning (communi-ties of practices), Organising and Managing.

LeadersTraditionally we associate the term Leader with those responsible for an organisation.

LeadershipThe way in which leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision of the organisa-tion. It reflects how they develop values required for long-term success and implement them via appropri-ate actions and behaviours. It indicates how leaders are personally involved in ensuring that the manage-ment system is developed, implemented and reviewed and that organisations permanently focus on change and innovation.

LearningThe acquiring and understanding of knowledge and information that may lead to improvement or change. Examples of organisational learning activities include benchmarking/ bench learning, internally and exter-nally led assessments and/or audits, and best practice studies. Examples of individual learning include train-ing and developing skills.

– Learning environment An environment within a working community

where learning takes place in the form of skill ac-quisition, knowledge sharing, the exchange of ex-perience, and dialogue on best practice.

– Learning organisation An organisation where people continually expand

their capacity to achieve the results they desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are fostered, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning within the context of the whole organisation.

MissionA description of what an organisation should achieve for its stakeholders. The mission of a public sector or-ganisation results from a public policy and/or statutory mandates.

It is the organisation’s “raison d’être”.

The final goals an organisation sets out to achieve in the context of its mission are formulated in its vision.

NetworkAn informal organisation connecting people or or-ganisations that may or may not have a formal line of command. Members of the network often share values and interests.

Objectives (goals/aims/targets)A formulation of a desired situation describing the de-sired results or effects as defined in the mission of the organisation.

– Strategic objectives Global objectives for the mid-and long-term indi-

cate the overall direction to which the organisation wants to go. It describes the final results or effects (outcomes) it wants to pursue.

– Operational objectives They are a concrete formulation of the strategic

objectives, e.g. at unit level. An operational objec-tive can be immediately transformed into a set of activities and tasks.

Organisational cultureThe total range of behaviours, ethics, and values which are transmitted, practised and reinforced by members of organisations; influenced by national, socio-politi-cal and legal traditions and systems.

Organisational structureThe way an organisation is structured, i.e. the division of work areas or functions, formal chains of communi-cation between management and employees, and the way tasks and responsibilities are divided throughout the organisation.

OutputThe immediate result of production, which may be ei-ther goods or services. There is a distinction between intermediate and final outputs, the former being prod-ucts delivered from one department to another within an organisation, the latter outputs delivered to some-one outside the organisation.

OutcomeThe overall effect that outputs have on external stake-holders or wider society.

Example of Output and Outcome: Stronger conditions for possessing firearms lead to fewer permits. The in-termediate output is that there are fewer permits is-sued. The final output is that there are less firearms circulating in society. These outputs lead to the out-come that a higher level of safety or feeling of security is achieved.

PartnershipCollaboration with other parties on a commercial or a non-commercial basis to reach a common goal, thus creating added value for the organisation and its cus-tomers/stakeholders.


48

PDCA cycleA cycle of four stages one has to go through to realise continuous improvement, as described by Deming: – Plan (project phase)– Do (execution phase)– Check (control phase)– Act (action-, adaptation- and correction phase)It emphasises that improvement programs must start with careful planning, must result in effective action, be checked and eventually adapted, and must move on again to careful planning in a continuing cycle.

PeopleAll individuals employed by the organisation including full time, part time, and temporary employees.

Perception measurementMeasurement of subjective impressions and opinions of an individual or a group of people, e.g. the custom-er’s perception of the quality of a product or service.

PerformanceA measure of attainment achieved by an individual, team, organisation or process.

Public policy A purposeful course of action followed by governmen-tal bodies and officials in dealing with a problem or a matter of public interest. This includes government action, inaction, decisions and non-decisions and it implies choices between competitive alternatives.

ProcedureA description of how activities should take place, in a detailed and defined way.

ProcessA process is defined as a set of activities, which trans-forms a set of inputs into outputs, thereby adding val-ue. The nature of processes in public service organisa-tions may vary greatly, from relatively abstract activities such as support for policy development or regulation of economic activities, to very concrete activities of service provision.

One can distinguish between:– Core processes are critical to the delivery of prod-

ucts and services– Support processes deliver the necessary resources– Management processes steer the organisation and

support processes– Key processes are those of the above pro-

cesses that are of utmost importance for the organisation.

Process diagramA graphical representation of the series of actions tak-ing place within a process

Process mapA graphical representation of the series of actions tak-ing place between processes.

Process ownerThe person responsible for designing, improving and performing processes, their coordination and integra-tion inside the organisation. Her/his responsibilities include the following:

– Understand the process: How is it carried out in practice?

– Target the process: How does it fit into the broader vision? Who are the internal and external stake-holders and are their expectations met? How does the process relate to other processes?

– Communicate the process to the internal and ex-ternal stakeholders

– Monitor and measure the process: To what extent is the process efficient and effective?

– Benchmark the process: How do other organisa-tions perform and what can we learn from them?

– Envision the process: What is the long-term vision for the process and what do we have to do to reach it?

– Report the process: What exactly can be improved? Where are the weaknesses and how can they be targeted?

By employing these steps the process owner has the chance to improve the process continually.

Public service organisation/Public adminis-trationA public service organisation is any institution, serv-ice organisation or system, which is under the policy direction of and controlled by an elected government (national, federal, regional or local). It includes or-ganisations that deal with development of policy and enforcement of law, i.e. matters that could not be re-garded strictly as services.

QualityDelivering quality in the public sector is concerned with maximising the value of products and services for all stakeholders within a political and financial frame-work. TQM focuses on procedures and processes that are deemed instrumental in promoting quality.

– Quality control Systematic control of the organisation’s abil-

ity to create professional quality in the serv-ices it offers and delivers. It is systematic in that the results emerge from a planned, deliberate effort. Some organisations choose a system for quality control based on a quality manual or proc-ess manuals. Quality control systems usually con-tain a select collection of guidelines for implement-ing quality controls in practice, and how quality is measured and improved.

– Quality management A method for ensuring that all the activities neces-

sary to design, develop and implement a product or service are effective and efficient with respect to the system and its performance.


49

– Quality management system A system that outlines the policies and procedures

necessary to improve, control and integrate the processes eventually leading to a better perform-ance.

ResourcesResources include the knowledge, labour, capital, buildings or technology an organisation uses to per-form its tasks.

Role modelPersons or organisations who serve as a model in a particular behavioural or social role for other persons to imitate or learn from.

SMART objectivesObjectives state what an organisation has set out to achieve. It is recommended that objectives should be SMART:– Specific – precise about what you are going to

achieve – Measurable – with quantified objectives – Achievable – Realistic – Are the necessary resources available? – Timed – within manageable timing

StakeholdersStakeholders are all those who have an interest, wheth-er financial or not, in the activities of the organisation, for example, political decision-makers, citizens/cus-tomers, employees, society, inspection agencies, me-dia, partners, etc. Government organisations are also stakeholders.

StrategyA long-term plan of prioritised actions designed to achieve a major or overall goal or to fulfil a mission.

SurveyTo collect data on opinions, attitudes or knowledge from individuals and groups. Frequently only a cross-section of the whole population is asked to partici-pate.

SWOT AnalysisAnalysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities (potential advantages) and Threats (potential difficul-ties) of and to an organisation.

TermPeriod of time in which results should be achieved– Short term Refers usually to less than one year– Medium term Refers usually to periods of one to five years

ahead– Long term Refers usually to periods of more than five years

Top-downFlow of information and decisions from upper levels to lower levels within an organisation. The opposite is bottom-up.

TQM (Total Quality Management) A customer focused management philosophy that seeks to continuously improve business processes us-ing analytical tools and teamwork involving all em-ployees. There are several TQM models, the EFQM, the CAF, the Malcolm Baldrige (USA), ISO 9004 being the most commonly used.

TransparencyTransparency implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in the physical sciences: a „transparent“ object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclo-sure statements, the freedom of information legisla-tion, budgetary review, audits, etc.

ValueValue refers to monetary, welfare, cultural and moral values. Moral values are considered to be more or less universal, whereas cultural val-ues may shift between organisations as well as between countries. Cultural values within an or-ganisation should be transmitted and practised and also be related to the mission of the organisa-tion. They may be quite different between non-profit organisations and private businesses.

VisionThe achievable dream or aspiration of what an organisation wants to do and where it would like to be.

The context of this dream and aspiration is determined by the mission of the organisation.


caf brochure 2008 a4 english - eupan€¦ · ccaf_brochure_2008_a4_english.ind3...

Documents